From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 00:20:35 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:20:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <025301d27c21$02ec95f0$08c5c1d0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?But in turn, we cannot tolerate increasing population with no end in sight. China's policy was a disaster, but I think I can tolerate infringing on people's right to have children to limit them to two. Maybe along the way that'll be lowered to one. ?bill w Ja, we get that BillW, but that really isn?t in question. The question is if the people whose right you infringe upon will tolerate you. My guess is they will not. Notice a big difference between China and the USA: China had nothing analogous to our constitution. So they could do things our Federal government cannot legally do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 00:35:35 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 19:35:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch Message-ID: I hope Trump doesn't pick Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, he ?'s? fanatically against euthanasia and that's about as anti-libertarian as you can get, it should be especially disturbing to those of us that are interested in Cryonics. He ?feel so strongly about it he ? even wrote a book expressing his totalitarian philosophy "The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 00:22:32 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:22:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ?>?No need to pass laws about that if we spread the wealth around ? ?John K Clark HA! He said it! John, please define ?THE wealth.? Whose wealth is the? spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 01:07:29 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:07:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:22 PM, spike wrote: > ?>? > please define ?THE wealth.? > > ? Example are more fundamental than definitions, they are after all where the writers of dictionaries figure out what the definitions in their book should be. So wealth is the thing that Bill Gates has and the typical resident of Niger does not. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 01:52:00 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 20:52:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Assuming his nomination goes through, let's hope he's willing to lean towards states rights on this issue despite his own beliefs (which is a possibility based on his overall judicial record and view of the Constitution). I will admit it is troubling though. On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > I hope Trump doesn't pick Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, he > ?'s? > fanatically against euthanasia and that's about as anti-libertarian as > you can get, it should be especially disturbing to those of us that are > interested in Cryonics. He > ?feel so strongly about it he ? > even wrote a book expressing his totalitarian philosophy "The Future of > Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia". > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 02:24:11 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:24:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] John's idea On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:22 PM, spike > wrote: ?>? please define ?THE wealth.? Example are more fundamental than definitions, they are after all where the writers of dictionaries figure out what the definitions in their book should be. So wealth is the thing that Bill Gates has and the typical resident of Niger does not. John K Clark Ja, you offered a definition of wealth by two examples, and gave me Bill Gates? wealth and a typical resident of Niger?s wealth. Neither of these is part of ?the wealth? from my own admittedly vague understanding of the term. This is an important question, for I think it really traces all the way back to the fundamental difference in what looks to me like a long-running culture war. If we go all the way back to the fundamental difference in outlook between people, I think it is very close to how one defines ?the wealth.? I cannot define it. My inability to define ?the wealth? is why I ask the question: what happens when the Federal government cannot pay its bills? To many, that question in itself makes little sense. To many, there is a simple answer to the question. To me, there is no simple answer to the question of what happens if (or when) the government runs out of money, but there is a simple observation that it will be a very unpleasant thing indeed. John, I ask sir, what happens when the Federal government is out of money? spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 02:44:41 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:44:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> Message-ID: You may be waiting a very long time to find out...look to Japan for clues as to how long: [image: Inline image 1] http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/government-debt-to-gdp On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:24 PM, spike wrote: > > > > John, I ask sir, what happens when the Federal government is out of money? > > > > spike > > ? > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 20623 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 03:50:19 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 22:50:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:24 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > > I think it is very close to how one defines ?the wealth.? I cannot > define it. > > ?Are you' saying there is no such thing as wealth?? > John, I ask sir, what happens when the Federal government is out of money? ? Nothing because government can do what you and I can not, they can do what they've done every years since 1835 (except for the last 2 Clinton years) ? , they can print more money. I realize wealth is not the same as money and it's much more difficult to print wealth than money, but it can be done and it's easier to do than it once was and its getting easier every day. If money and wealth are to stay in sync and the world gets wealthier then governments will need to put their trusty old printing press into overdrive from time to time. Just be careful, don't over-crank it as Germany did in 1920 or under-crank it as the USA did in 1929 . John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 05:42:55 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:42:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> Message-ID: <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2017 7:50 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] John's idea On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:24 PM, spike > wrote: ?> >? I think it is very close to how one defines ?the wealth.? I cannot define it. ?>?Are you' saying there is no such thing as wealth?? Not at all. I have some. Bill Gates has some, the citizen of Niger has some. But none of that is ?the wealth? and the reason I asked is that found in your answer to the following: >>? John, I ask sir, what happens when the Federal government is out of money? ? >?Nothing because government can do what you and I can not, they can do what they've done every years since 1835 (except for the last 2 Clinton years), they can print more money? Ah. There is a common belief that nations may print money without borrowing someone else?s wealth to back it. Just print more, which is to say, go ahead and debase the currency as needed. Plenty of nations around the world do that. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Argentina come to mind. When countries debase their currency, one immediate effect is that people find alternative means of storing their wealth, as the currency is debased. In many African nations, they drop all pretenses that the notes printed by their own flimsy excuse for a government has any actual value. They can?t order an iPhone using that currency. So they conclude that it isn?t really currency. They trade in American dollars or euros. The reason dollars are still recognized as actual money all around the globe is that we don?t print them out with nothing behind them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 07:58:58 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:58:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:46 AM, spike wrote: > Think about the most spectacular event you personally witnessed in your > life, but don?t count some terrific rock concert or Olympic Games opening > ceremony intended to be spectacular and being recorded by a jillion > professionally-made devices. Disregard those and think of the most > spectacular or interesting thing you have witnessed which would draw a big > audience on YouTube, had you a video camera on it when it happened. It can > be some really oddball wildlife encounter for instance, or the model plane > crash described above, or anything you think would draw eyes on YouTube > specifically to your video, the kinds of stuff that is popular on YouTube, > getting enough hits to make money at it. > > I am asking for a reason. I think the answers will be informative. Hard to pick just one, but perhaps that time I watched a building burning for a while before the fire department arrived. There may have been people visibly burning to death; it was a while ago. Would it draw eyes? You betcha. YouTube would doubtless pull it eventually, but in the mean time the ad revenue would more than cover the costs of setting up fake accounts to make the money disappear - and leave no trail for investigators to follow, or at least muddle it enough to make it too resource-consuming to be worth following once the accounts are shut down. Would I do it? Hell no. From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 14:42:40 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:42:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook Message-ID: I'm 26 years old and want nothing to do with social media Quotes: People use social media for arranging events a lot, and I probably do miss out sometimes. But it doesn?t really bother me. If someone can?t find the time to send me a quick text, or drop me a call, then they?re probably not that interested in me being there. Also, I read George Orwell?s 1984 at an impressionable age, and the idea of being under constant surveillance terrifies me. When the Snowden story broke I felt many things, but not surprise. The idea that intelligence agencies like USA's NSA (National Security Agency) can just tap into the information social media companies have about me ? that?s not something I?m comfortable with. It?s become normal for everyone to judge each other based on their social media profiles, and I think that creates pressure to conform. It encourages people to create an ideal online version of themselves. But it?s not real. Often, when you go out, you see everyone?s eyes fixed on a screen. There?ll be groups of friends doing nothing but taking and posting pictures, instead of actually having a good time together. Something is being lost there. ------------------ I wonder if the revival of 1984 will reduce the popularity of posting everything on Facebook? BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 15:31:05 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:31:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> Message-ID: there is a inverse relationship between income and fertility. john This has been known for a long time but has not shown up in our foreign policy. One reason is that people just don't want their money to go overseas. Another is that they believe that if you feed them you'll just get more mouths to feed. Another may be the real problem: we send money, food, equipment etc. and it lands in the hands of bandits, often in the government itself. bill w On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 11:42 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 31, 2017 7:50 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] John's idea > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 9:24 PM, spike wrote: > > > > ?> >? I think it is very close to how one defines ?the wealth.? I > cannot define it. > > > > ?>?Are you' saying there is no such thing as wealth?? > > > > > > Not at all. I have some. Bill Gates has some, the citizen of Niger has > some. But none of that is ?the wealth? and the reason I asked is that > found in your answer to the following: > > > > > > >>? John, I ask sir, what happens when the Federal government is out of > money? > > > > ? > > >?Nothing because government can do what you and I can not, they can do > what they've done every years since 1835 (except for the last 2 Clinton > years), they can print more money? > > > > Ah. There is a common belief that nations may print money without > borrowing someone else?s wealth to back it. Just print more, which is to > say, go ahead and debase the currency as needed. Plenty of nations around > the world do that. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Argentina come to mind. > > > > When countries debase their currency, one immediate effect is that people > find alternative means of storing their wealth, as the currency is > debased. In many African nations, they drop all pretenses that the notes > printed by their own flimsy excuse for a government has any actual value. > They can?t order an iPhone using that currency. So they conclude that it > isn?t really currency. They trade in American dollars or euros. > > > > The reason dollars are still recognized as actual money all around the > globe is that we don?t print them out with nothing behind them. > > > > 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 Wed Feb 1 15:39:55 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:39:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Dylan Distasio wrote: ?> ? > Assuming his nomination goes through, let's hope he's willing to lean > towards states rights on this issue despite his own beliefs > ?To hell with states rights! In matters concerning when where and if one should die the decision should be made by the individual involved not by government, state local or federal. John K Clark ========= > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:35 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> I hope Trump doesn't pick Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, he >> ?'s? >> fanatically against euthanasia and that's about as anti-libertarian as >> you can get, it should be especially disturbing to those of us that are >> interested in Cryonics. He >> ?feel so strongly about it he ? >> even wrote a book expressing his totalitarian philosophy "The Future of >> Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia". >> >> John K Clark >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 15:43:40 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:43:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John- On this topic (and probably many others in terms of individual decisionmaking and freedoms), we agree 100% but I am looking for a pragmatic ray of light in terms of this issue under the political landscape we are dealing with. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:39 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > ?> ? >> Assuming his nomination goes through, let's hope he's willing to lean >> towards states rights on this issue despite his own beliefs >> > > ?To hell with states rights! In matters concerning when where and if one > should die the decision should be made by the individual involved not by > government, state local or federal. > > John K Clark > ========= > > > > >> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:35 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> I hope Trump doesn't pick Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, he >>> ?'s? >>> fanatically against euthanasia and that's about as anti-libertarian as >>> you can get, it should be especially disturbing to those of us that are >>> interested in Cryonics. He >>> ?feel so strongly about it he ? >>> even wrote a book expressing his totalitarian philosophy "The Future of >>> Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia". >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 15:52:08 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:52:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:42 AM, BillK wrote: > I'm 26 years old and want nothing to do with social media > I think that's going unnecessarily far. Yes, many people over share on social media, but that doesn't mean one can't do it responsibly. I wonder if the revival of 1984 will reduce the popularity of posting > everything on Facebook? > I highly doubt it. The over-sharers probably aren't the the ones reading Nineteen Eighty-Four. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 15:39:29 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:39:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 6:43 AM To: Extropy Chat Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/7d258ad8-da0b-498d-b807-4eac941f6228?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=bbcthree&intc_campaign=bbcthree&intc_linkname=article_socialmedia_contentcard35 Quotes: >>...Also, I read George Orwell?s 1984 at an impressionable age, and the idea of being under constant surveillance terrifies me... (guy in BillK's article) I too read Orwell at an impressionable age, but constant surveillance does not terrify me. It gives me ever more determination to make sure government behaves properly, as in within the strict bounds of the constitution. That book is what made me such a persistent Orwell drum-beater, no apologies offered. >...I wonder if the revival of 1984 will reduce the popularity of posting everything on Facebook? BillK "...revival of 1984..." oh music to my ears, thanks BillK, a book which never should have needed revival, should be required reading for all public school teenagers, even has drinking and a sex scene in it (of sorts) to motivate them. I will turn it around and ask: has anyone here comments on the notion of being terrified or comforted by constant surveillance? Do you have examples of kids now in their teens who have always been under constant surveillance and get nervous when they are not? USians, are you good with all outside-your-home surveillance being 4th amendment compliant? Does surveillance protect us or threaten us, or both? Does it enable government wrongdoing, or expose and eliminate it, or both. Do explain please. BillK and you chaps in Jolly Olde and enlightened places, what does 1984 do to you? spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 15:49:43 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 07:49:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019101d27ca2$cf435bd0$6dca1370$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 7:40 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: ?> ? Assuming his nomination goes through, let's hope he's willing to lean towards states rights on this issue despite his own beliefs ?To hell with states rights! In matters concerning when where and if one should die the decision should be made by the individual involved not by government, state local or federal. John K Clark ========= John your comment surprises me. With the current wackiness at the Federal level, one would think you would have become a big fan of states? rights (as opposed to Federal.) I have. Well, OK I always was. Note that the nomination makes decisions at the Federal level, based on the US constitution, which doesn?t say anything about euthanasia or cryonics. If states? rights prevail, some of the 50 states will allow euthanasia for cryonics patients. In that sense this nominee is exactly who we want, ja? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 16:26:38 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:26:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch In-Reply-To: <019101d27ca2$cf435bd0$6dca1370$@att.net> References: <019101d27ca2$cf435bd0$6dca1370$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, spike wrote: > > > With the current wackiness at the Federal level, one would think you would > have become a big fan of states? rights (as opposed to Federal.) I have. > Well, OK I always was. Note that the nomination makes decisions at the > Federal level, based on the US constitution, which doesn?t say anything > about euthanasia or cryonics. If states? rights prevail, some of the 50 > states will allow euthanasia for cryonics patients. In that sense this > nominee is exactly who we want, ja? > That would be awesome, but, with the rampant abuse of the Commerce Clause, there's basically nothing that's off limits to Federal regulation. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich, "a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution , Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes ". -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 17:51:39 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:51:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: I will turn it around and ask: has anyone here comments on the notion of being terrified or comforted by constant surveillance? Do you have examples of kids now in their teens who have always been under constant surveillance and get nervous when they are not? USians, are you good with all outside-your-home surveillance being 4th amendment compliant? Does surveillance protect us or threaten us, or both? Does it enable government wrongdoing, or expose and eliminate it, or both. Do explain please. dave still I just don't care what they know about me, my friends, where I shop and what I buy - so far that has been beneficial to me, in that suggestions for what to buy next has been great. I can't see that anyone who is not a tax evader or other criminal of some sort has anything to fear. All we have to fear is someone coming after the innocent for some reason. And being used in illegal ways, such has been done, I think, by the CIA, NSA and so on. It certainly enables wrongdoing. So does owning a hammer. On balance surveillance protects us, though not very much, unless the gov is hiding data, which I assume they are. I do hope surveillance is being used to catch tax cheats, esp. the rich who are hiding money overseas. I am much more concerned about that, because that is huge numbers of people and mountains of money, whereas catching terrorists is a rare thing, if in fact we are told about it. There is frankly a lot of paranoia about this and I don't see where any of it is justified. What can be done could be enormously evil. It's a tool at the other end of the scale from the hammer. And it is now a fact of life and will not go away - period. bill w On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:39 AM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf Of BillK > Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 6:43 AM > To: Extropy Chat > Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/item/7d258ad8-da0b-498d-b807- > 4eac941f6228?intc_type=singletheme&intc_location=bbcthree&intc_campaign= > bbcthree&intc_linkname=article_socialmedia_contentcard35 > > > > Quotes: > > >>...Also, I read George Orwell?s 1984 at an impressionable age, and the > idea of being under constant surveillance terrifies me... > (guy in BillK's article) > > > I too read Orwell at an impressionable age, but constant surveillance does > not terrify me. It gives me ever more determination to make sure > government behaves properly, as in within the strict bounds of the > constitution. That book is what made me such a persistent Orwell > drum-beater, no apologies offered. > > > >...I wonder if the revival of 1984 will reduce the popularity of posting > everything on Facebook? BillK > > "...revival of 1984..." oh music to my ears, thanks BillK, a book which > never should have needed revival, should be required reading for all public > school teenagers, even has drinking and a sex scene in it (of sorts) to > motivate them. > > I will turn it around and ask: has anyone here comments on the notion of > being terrified or comforted by constant surveillance? Do you have > examples of kids now in their teens who have always been under constant > surveillance and get nervous when they are not? USians, are you good with > all outside-your-home surveillance being 4th amendment compliant? Does > surveillance protect us or threaten us, or both? Does it enable government > wrongdoing, or expose and eliminate it, or both. Do explain please. BillK > and you chaps in Jolly Olde and enlightened places, what does 1984 do to > you? > > 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 Wed Feb 1 18:06:09 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:06:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch In-Reply-To: <019101d27ca2$cf435bd0$6dca1370$@att.net> References: <019101d27ca2$cf435bd0$6dca1370$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, spike wrote: > ? >> ?>> ? >> To hell with states rights! In matters concerning when where and if one >> should die the decision should be made by the individual involved not by >> government, state local or federal. > > > ?> ? > John your comment surprises me. > ?Spike, if you know of an idea that is more bedrock libertarian then that you and you alone have the right to determine when if and how you should die then I'd like to hear about it. ? > > > ?? > With the current wackiness at the Federal level, one would think you would > have become a big fan of states? rights (as opposed to Federal.) I have. > Well, OK I always was. ?I know that's not what you mean but for me the term "states rights" has a slightly unpleasant smell to it, probably because I'm old enough to remember its association with the jim crow laws of the south. ?And I really don't care much if states lose rights, but I do care if people do. ?> ? > Note that the nomination makes decisions at the Federal level, based on > the US constitution > ?Based on the judge's *interpretation* ? ?of the US constitution, and this Bozo wrote a screed against euthanasia! All judges claim their personal beliefs won't influence their interpretation, and I don't believe them for one second. Besides, the US constitution? is not a law of physics or the word of god, in fact as originally written in was a downright evil document by today's standards , subsequent amendments have improved it greatly but it's still far from perfect. For example, in the Hobby Lobby c ase ? ? Gorsuch ? ruled that if somebody does something for a religious reason it's constitutional but if they do the exact same thing for reasons that are not religious it's unconstitutional. I don't know if Gorsuch is right about its constitutionality, but I do know the entire idea is nuts. ? > ?>? > If states? rights prevail, some of the 50 states will allow euthanasia > for cryonics patients. > ?Some states already do (California for example) , and many say those state laws are ?in conflict with ?Federal law, so sooner or later it's going to end up in the Supreme Court and I have no doubt Gorsuch ? will find that those state laws violate something somewhere ?in the constitution, at least in his opinion. And his opinion, and that of 8 other people, are the only opinions that matter. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 18:22:56 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:22:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: I wish Spike and Bill would use the standard message quoting format. It would reduce confusion. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:51 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I will turn it around and ask: has anyone here comments on the notion of > being terrified or comforted by constant surveillance? Do you have > examples of kids now in their teens who have always been under constant > surveillance and get nervous when they are not? USians, are you good with > all outside-your-home surveillance being 4th amendment compliant? Does > surveillance protect us or threaten us, or both? Does it enable government > wrongdoing, or expose and eliminate it, or both. Do explain please. dave > still > I think that means Bill thinks I wrote that, even though I didn't. And my last name isn't Still. That was Spike. I just don't care what they know about me, my friends, where I shop and > what I buy - so far that has been beneficial to me, in that suggestions for > what to buy next has been great. > Sure, as long as you trade your private info knowingly and willingly, that's a private matter between you and whoever is collecting that data. > I can't see that anyone who is not a tax evader or other criminal of some > sort has anything to fear. > Some people are just more private. That shouldn't be a problem. All we have to fear is someone coming after the innocent for some reason. > And being used in illegal ways, such has been done, I think, by the CIA, > NSA and so on. It certainly enables wrongdoing. So does owning a hammer. > On balance surveillance protects us, though not very much, unless the gov > is hiding data, which I assume they are. > There's a lot to fear: private companies or governments that intentionally or accidentally disclose people's personal data to third parties, threaten to do so, or otherwise use it improperly/illegally. > I do hope surveillance is being used to catch tax cheats, esp. the rich > who are hiding money overseas. I am much more concerned about that, > because that is huge numbers of people and mountains of money, whereas > catching terrorists is a rare thing, if in fact we are told about it. > Yeah, remember that time the billionaire got caught evading taxes? Yeah, neither do I. There is frankly a lot of paranoia about this and I don't see where any of > it is justified. What can be done could be enormously evil. It's a tool > at the other end of the scale from the hammer. And it is now a fact of life > and will not go away - period. > Right, there risks are great and they're not going away. Privacy reduces those risks. Laws that control the use of private data could reduce those risks. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 18:27:29 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:27:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Neil Gorsuch In-Reply-To: References: <019101d27ca2$cf435bd0$6dca1370$@att.net> Message-ID: > > If states? rights prevail, some of the 50 states will allow euthanasia for > cryonics patients.spike > ?Some states already do (California for example john Oregon is another, I think. If it all turns out wrong, there's always Amsterdam, where you can have your drugs of choice before you go. bill w On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:06 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:49 AM, spike wrote: > > >> ? >>> ?>> ? >>> To hell with states rights! In matters concerning when where and if one >>> should die the decision should be made by the individual involved not by >>> government, state local or federal. >> >> >> ?> ? >> John your comment surprises me. >> > > ?Spike, if you know of an idea that is more bedrock libertarian then that > you and you alone have the right to determine when if and how you should > die then I'd like to hear about it. ? > > > >> > >> ?? >> With the current wackiness at the Federal level, one would think you >> would have become a big fan of states? rights (as opposed to Federal.) I >> have. Well, OK I always was. > > > ?I know that's not what you mean but for me the term "states rights" has > a slightly unpleasant smell to it, probably because I'm old enough to > remember its association with the jim crow laws of the south. ?And I > really don't care much if states lose rights, but I do care if people do. > > > ?> ? >> Note that the nomination makes decisions at the Federal level, based on >> the US constitution >> > > ?Based on the judge's *interpretation* ? > > ?of the US constitution, and this Bozo wrote a screed against euthanasia! > All judges claim their personal beliefs won't influence their > interpretation, and I don't believe them for one second. Besides, the US > constitution? is not a law of physics or the word of god, in fact as > originally written in was a downright evil document by today's standards , > subsequent amendments have improved it greatly but it's still far from > perfect. For example, in the Hobby Lobby c > ase > ? ? > Gorsuch > ? ruled that if somebody does something for a religious reason it's > constitutional but if they do the exact same thing for reasons that are not > religious it's unconstitutional. I don't know if Gorsuch is right about its > constitutionality, but I do know the entire idea is nuts. ? > > > >> ?>? >> If states? rights prevail, some of the 50 states will allow euthanasia >> for cryonics patients. >> > > ?Some states already do (California for example) , and many say those > state laws are > > ?in conflict with ?Federal law, so sooner or later it's going to end up in > the Supreme Court and I have no doubt > Gorsuch > ? will find that those state laws violate something somewhere ?in the > constitution, at least in his opinion. And his opinion, and that of 8 other > people, are the only opinions that matter. > > John K Clark > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 18:34:58 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:34:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: I wish Spike and Bill would use the standard message quoting format. It would reduce confusion. dave sill (I typed Still again - it's just in my fingers). Sorry about he misattribution. What are Spike and I doing wrong? I would be glad to make it easier to do this. The time will come for chasing tax money overseas. I am already reading articles about it. Hope it's just a matter of time. But what is to stop a company from pulling up stakes and moving entirely to another country with few or no taxes that would welcome them to provide jobs at rates the USA can't compete with? I am very likely for any sort of privacy bill that actually works, even though I don't need it. bill w On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > I wish Spike and Bill would use the standard message quoting format. It > would reduce confusion. > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:51 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I will turn it around and ask: has anyone here comments on the notion of >> being terrified or comforted by constant surveillance? Do you have >> examples of kids now in their teens who have always been under constant >> surveillance and get nervous when they are not? USians, are you good with >> all outside-your-home surveillance being 4th amendment compliant? Does >> surveillance protect us or threaten us, or both? Does it enable government >> wrongdoing, or expose and eliminate it, or both. Do explain please. dave >> still >> > > I think that means Bill thinks I wrote that, even though I didn't. And my > last name isn't Still. That was Spike. > > I just don't care what they know about me, my friends, where I shop and >> what I buy - so far that has been beneficial to me, in that suggestions for >> what to buy next has been great. >> > > Sure, as long as you trade your private info knowingly and willingly, > that's a private matter between you and whoever is collecting that data. > > >> I can't see that anyone who is not a tax evader or other criminal of some >> sort has anything to fear. >> > > Some people are just more private. That shouldn't be a problem. > > All we have to fear is someone coming after the innocent for some reason. >> And being used in illegal ways, such has been done, I think, by the CIA, >> NSA and so on. It certainly enables wrongdoing. So does owning a hammer. >> On balance surveillance protects us, though not very much, unless the gov >> is hiding data, which I assume they are. >> > > There's a lot to fear: private companies or governments that intentionally > or accidentally disclose people's personal data to third parties, threaten > to do so, or otherwise use it improperly/illegally. > > >> I do hope surveillance is being used to catch tax cheats, esp. the rich >> who are hiding money overseas. I am much more concerned about that, >> because that is huge numbers of people and mountains of money, whereas >> catching terrorists is a rare thing, if in fact we are told about it. >> > > Yeah, remember that time the billionaire got caught evading taxes? Yeah, > neither do I. > > There is frankly a lot of paranoia about this and I don't see where any of >> it is justified. What can be done could be enormously evil. It's a tool >> at the other end of the scale from the hammer. And it is now a fact of life >> and will not go away - period. >> > > Right, there risks are great and they're not going away. Privacy reduces > those risks. Laws that control the use of private data could reduce those > risks. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 18:57:33 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:57:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I wish Spike and Bill would use the standard message quoting format. It > would reduce confusion. dave sill > > (I typed Still again - it's just in my fingers). Sorry about he > misattribution. What are Spike and I doing wrong? I would be glad to make > it easier to do this. > It's not a question or right vs. wrong, it's a question of following an established convention that has proven to be effective and is supported by many mail agents. In a nutshell, when quoting from another message, e.g., in a reply, the quote should be of the format: On at , wrote: > something The ">" indicates quoted text and sometimes other characters like "| or ":" are used. Gmail uses a gray vertical line in messages with non-ASCII formatting. If a quote includes a quote, the multiple quote prefixes show exactly who said what. E.g.: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Dave Sill > wrote: >> I wish Spike and Bill would use the standard message quoting format... For *much* more on this topic see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 19:17:26 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 19:17:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On 1 February 2017 at 17:51, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I just don't care what they know about me, my friends, where I shop and what > I buy - so far that has been beneficial to me, in that suggestions for what > to buy next has been great. I can't see that anyone who is not a tax evader > or other criminal of some sort has anything to fear. > > There is frankly a lot of paranoia about this and I don't see where any of > it is justified. What can be done could be enormously evil. It's a tool at > the other end of the scale from the hammer. And it is now a fact of life and > will not go away - period. > I think you might be making the mistake that just because (at the moment) surveillance doesn't appear to affect you personally then it doesn't affect anyone. Companies and governments are not spending billions on tracking everything they can because it doesn't have any affect. Firstly, they are attempting to control people and make them dutiful consumers. Then they cross-link them to other contacts and associations. (Guilt by association). BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 19:33:39 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:33:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: Firstly, they are attempting to control people and make them dutiful consumers. Then they cross-link them to other contacts and associations. (Guilt by association). bill k When I buy some seeds from burpee they sell my name and address to other seed companies which then send me catalogs, which are desired. Other companies, such as charities, do the same. Although getting unwanted calls from charities can be a problem, I am fine with all of this. I can hang up, toss the catalog, block the emails, etc. So far I have been helped, not harmed by these practices. bill w On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 1:17 PM, BillK wrote: > On 1 February 2017 at 17:51, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > > I just don't care what they know about me, my friends, where I shop and > what > > I buy - so far that has been beneficial to me, in that suggestions for > what > > to buy next has been great. I can't see that anyone who is not a tax > evader > > or other criminal of some sort has anything to fear. > > > > > There is frankly a lot of paranoia about this and I don't see where any > of > > it is justified. What can be done could be enormously evil. It's a > tool at > > the other end of the scale from the hammer. And it is now a fact of life > and > > will not go away - period. > > > > I think you might be making the mistake that just because (at the > moment) surveillance doesn't appear to affect you personally then it > doesn't > affect anyone. Companies and governments are not spending billions on > tracking everything they can because it doesn't have any affect. > Firstly, they are attempting to control people and make them dutiful > consumers. Then they cross-link them to other contacts and > associations. (Guilt by association). > > > 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 Wed Feb 1 20:49:44 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:49:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2017 10:36 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: I wish Spike and Bill would use the standard message quoting format. It would reduce confusion. dave sill (I typed Still again - it's just in my fingers). Sorry about he misattribution. What are Spike and I doing wrong? I would be glad to make it easier to do this. What Dave said in his post, but just to point out: the very fact that you see a need to type "dave sill" to clarify your quote means that you are quoting wrong. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 21:08:15 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 21:08:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On 1 February 2017 at 19:33, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > When I buy some seeds from burpee they sell my name and address to other > seed companies which then send me catalogs, which are desired. Other > companies, such as charities, do the same. Although getting unwanted calls > from charities can be a problem, I am fine with all of this. I can hang up, > toss the catalog, block the emails, etc. So far I have been helped, not > harmed by these practices. > Getting catalogues is trivialising the Big Data problem. Would you believe that Big Data got Trump elected? (And possibly helped the Brexit vote). Quotes: The Data That Turned the World Upside Down Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus Jan 28 2017, 2:15pm Psychologist Michal Kosinski developed a method to analyze people in minute detail based on their Facebook activity. Did a similar tool help propel Donald Trump to victory? Two reporters from Zurich-based Das Magazin went data-gathering. ---------------- Very long article, but I found it fascinating. BillK From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 21:11:32 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 13:11:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] here ya go, john Message-ID: <034201d27ccf$c3cbe600$4b63b200$@att.net> Bill Gates Set to Become World's First Trillionaire Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates could be the world's first trillionaire, according to research by Oxfam, reports CNBC. Gates, 61, is already worth around $85 billion and at the rate of return on his wealth that he is getting now, he could hit $1 trillion by age 86, Oxfam research found. The poverty research group said that very rich people have been earning an 11 percent rate of return since 2009. "If billionaires continue to secure these returns, we could see the world's first trillionaire in 25 years. In such an environment, if you are already rich, you have to try hard not to keep getting a lot richer," the report said. That result would happen even though Gates has given billions to charity, Oxfam's report said. In 2013, The Telegraph reported that he had given away $28 billion. According to Forbes writer Tim Worstall, the rate of return is actually around 4 percent, so Gates could only be worth $200 billion in 25 years. "More than you or I will ever have, but it's not a trillion, is it?" Worstall wrote. Eight billionaires have as much wealth as the 3.6 billion people in the poorest half of the world's population, according to Oxfam's report. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 1 20:58:35 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:58:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> Message-ID: <033d01d27ccd$f4fd8140$def883c0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] John's Idea On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:46 AM, spike wrote: >>... Think about the most spectacular event you personally witnessed in > your life... the kinds > of stuff that is popular on YouTube, getting enough hits to make money at it. > I am asking for a reason. I think the answers will be informative. >...Hard to pick just one, but perhaps that time I watched a building burning for a while before the fire department arrived. Would it draw eyes? You betcha... Cool the few responses were what I expected: crashes and fires. In the case of a car crash, the video is valuable because it helps determine who is at fault. Crime videos, same, helps bag the perps, or provides valuable court evidence. In the case of fires: burly young firefighter is first on the scene, bashes down the door, emerges with unconscious mother over the shoulder and a coupla babies in the other arm, resuscitation, everyone is fine, bystanders break into applause; hell we all want to see stuff like that, no need to apologize for it. Wildlife videos are good, but not as valuable; most people don't care all that much about wildlife, even if something educational, rare or wacky happens. My own spectacular event was a fire. Riding motorcycle eastbound on Interstate 10 in Arizona, saw huge billowing cloud of black smoke waaaay the hell out in the distance. As it came closer I realized it was an 18 wheeler on fire, still rolling. I pulled over, trucker realized his load was burning, he pulled over on the other side, jumped out of his truck just as the fire burned through and huge fireball emerged from his trailer. He tried to unhitch, but there was already a lot of heat coming off the load. I was thinking "Jump back in there trucker!" As if he read my mind, he came to the same conclusion: his trailer and load were already a total loss but his quarter million dollar truck hadn't burned up yet, so he jumped back in and took off down the road with the load burning like a Roman candle, dropping flaming debris along the freeway. Spectacular? Bet yer ass. Had I video recorded that, it would still be the trucker who lost his load and trailer, and possibly his truck, and it would still be me who benefitted from recording the unusual spectacular event. This all goes back to impacted industries. Talented porno stars can't make it for having to compete with millions of amateurs who give away their product. At one time attractive women were paid to pose nude. Now the pay went to not just zero, it went negative: someone has to pay for the guy running the camera, to create a product with no market value. You would almost think you could get enough volunteer labor to run those cameras. Rock stars must compete with free. Programmers, writers, artists, actors, content providers of all kinds are competing with free, much of it remarkably stiff competition. Understatment, a lot of free content is better than marketed IP. This is the kind of thing I am thinking about when John talks about masses of bitter unemployed. It isn't future, it is already. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 22:24:28 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:24:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: What Dave said in his post, but just to point out: the very fact that you see a need to type "dave sill" to clarify your quote means that you are quoting wrong. adrian Now tell me - what's wrong with that? I need to attribute the quote to the person who wrote it, eh? And I do not understand 'quoting wrong'. Punctuation? Maybe I am not doing it the Wiki way, but most of us having been doing it this way as long as I have been in this group. Maybe I am being dense here. bill w. On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:08 PM, BillK wrote: > On 1 February 2017 at 19:33, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > When I buy some seeds from burpee they sell my name and address to other > > seed companies which then send me catalogs, which are desired. Other > > companies, such as charities, do the same. Although getting unwanted > calls > > from charities can be a problem, I am fine with all of this. I can hang > up, > > toss the catalog, block the emails, etc. So far I have been helped, not > > harmed by these practices. > > > > Getting catalogues is trivialising the Big Data problem. > > Would you believe that Big Data got Trump elected? > (And possibly helped the Brexit vote). > > > > > Quotes: > > The Data That Turned the World Upside Down > > Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus > Jan 28 2017, 2:15pm > > Psychologist Michal Kosinski developed a method to analyze people in > minute detail based on their Facebook activity. Did a similar tool > help propel Donald Trump to victory? Two reporters from Zurich-based > Das Magazin went data-gathering. > ---------------- > > Very long article, but I found it fascinating. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 22:46:52 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:46:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:24 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > What Dave said in his post, but just to point out: the very fact that you > see a need to type "dave sill" to clarify your quote means that you are > quoting wrong. adrian > > Now tell me - what's wrong with that? > It's manual, so you can get it wrong--like the Spike quote you attributed to me. The attribution is at the end of the quote, so one has to read the whole thing to see that it's a quote. It's not a quoting format used by anyone else here. > I need to attribute the quote to the person who wrote it, eh? And I do > not understand 'quoting wrong'. > Like I said, it's not a question or right or wrong. > Punctuation? Maybe I am not doing it the Wiki way, but most of us having > been doing it this way as long as I have been in this group. Maybe I am > being dense here. > Maybe you are. If you really think other people here are doing that, you're wrong. What you're doing sort of works, but it isn't ideal, which is why I tried to take the time to explain why and how to do it right. If you just don't care or prefer your way or whatever, then fine, continue doing what you're doing. But if you really can't see the differences between your way and the standard way, well, then you are being dense. You use Gmail, so it's automatically using the standard quoting method. You're having to manual undo that and redo it your way. For what benefit? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 22:54:23 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 14:54:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's Idea In-Reply-To: References: <008f01d27bd9$3a3cf9c0$aeb6ed40$@att.net> <033d01d27ccd$f4fd8140$def883c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2017 1:12 PM, "spike" wrote: >... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] John's Idea On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 7:46 AM, spike wrote: >>... Think about the most spectacular event you personally witnessed in > your life... the kinds > of stuff that is popular on YouTube, getting enough hits to make money at it. > I am asking for a reason. I think the answers will be informative. >...Hard to pick just one, but perhaps that time I watched a building burning for a while before the fire department arrived. Would it draw eyes? You betcha... Cool the few responses were what I expected: crashes and fires. In the case of a car crash, the video is valuable because it helps determine who is at fault. Crime videos, same, helps bag the perps, or provides valuable court evidence. In the case of fires: burly young firefighter is first on the scene, bashes down the door, emerges with unconscious mother over the shoulder and a coupla babies in the other arm, resuscitation, everyone is fine, bystanders break into applause; hell we all want to see stuff like that, no need to apologize for it. No, I got there too late for evidence, and there was no heroic rescue. This was just watching property and perhaps people die in a fire, with no way to help. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 22:59:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:59:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:42 AM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > Not at all. I have some. Bill Gates has some, the citizen of Niger has > some. But none of that is ?the wealth? > ?"The wealth" is the sum total of everybody's wealth.? > ?>? > > There is a common belief that nations may print money without borrowing > someone else?s wealth to back it. > > It makes sense to borrow money because a dollar today has always be ?en? worth more than a dollar tomorrow, and with technology cranking up the wealth generating machinery into high gear ?, and doing so? ?at an accelerating rate, ? that ?'? s more true now than it has ever been. In the USA the money borrowed has always been payed back, there was never any question that they wouldn't ?,? and that's why loaning money to the USA was considered the safest investment in the world. And then one day the Republicans came within 45 minutes of defaulting on its debt, and the next day I officially changed my party affiliation from Republican to Democrat ? and haven't voted for a republican since. ? > ?> ? > Just print more, which is to say, go ahead and debase the currency as > needed. ?The USA has "debased" its currency almost every year since 1835, ?and yet we're still doing OK. How come? Because with a few notable ?exceptions the money printing press and the increase in wealth have more or less stayed in sync. ?> ? > Plenty of nations around the world do that. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, > Argentina come to mind. ?And some nations don't, the USA didn't "debase" the currency in 1929, instead they dramatically tightened the money supply turning a garden variety recession into a global economic meltdown. The USA did "debase" the currency somewhat in 2008, they should have debased it more, if they had the recovery from the Great Recession would have been faster. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 23:08:03 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 17:08:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: You use Gmail, so it's automatically using the standard quoting method. You're having to manual undo that and redo it your way. For what benefit? *-Dave* *OK, that's the old way. I do not undo anything when I reply. Now when I click on Reply, I get a blank page. I do not get anything like this:On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:24 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote:* *I don't even know where to get the individual addresses. Do I have to type all this in? I looked in Gmail settings and found nothing relating to format of a reply.If others care, then I do care and want to do it the way everyone else does (though Spike does it my way). * *bill w* On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:24 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> What Dave said in his post, but just to point out: the very fact that you >> see a need to type "dave sill" to clarify your quote means that you are >> quoting wrong. adrian >> >> Now tell me - what's wrong with that? >> > > It's manual, so you can get it wrong--like the Spike quote you attributed > to me. The attribution is at the end of the quote, so one has to read the > whole thing to see that it's a quote. It's not a quoting format used by > anyone else here. > > >> I need to attribute the quote to the person who wrote it, eh? And I do >> not understand 'quoting wrong'. >> > > Like I said, it's not a question or right or wrong. > > >> Punctuation? Maybe I am not doing it the Wiki way, but most of us having >> been doing it this way as long as I have been in this group. Maybe I am >> being dense here. >> > > Maybe you are. If you really think other people here are doing that, > you're wrong. What you're doing sort of works, but it isn't ideal, which is > why I tried to take the time to explain why and how to do it right. If you > just don't care or prefer your way or whatever, then fine, continue doing > what you're doing. But if you really can't see the differences between your > way and the standard way, well, then you are being dense. > > You use Gmail, so it's automatically using the standard quoting method. > You're having to manual undo that and redo it your way. For what benefit? > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Feb 1 23:33:29 2017 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:33:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: Rafal wrote: " But usually not over and over and over again. Even the perennial identity thread is less sticky. Hey, let's talk about guns. We haven't had a shitstorm about guns in something like, twenty years or so. Here is my take - free machine guns for every man, woman and child. And mandatory open carry in schools. School should be fun, too, no?" >>> This is the iconic and far-thinking Extropian list, and yet we are going to discuss mundane guns?!!!! I think every citizen should have access to rail guns and high powered lasers! And they will need home nuclear reactors to power them... I am discussing this as a home defense measure, since "every man's house is his castle." And well, you never know when your neighbor will decide to come at you with fast attack drones! Is it not libertarian to say, "if you can afford it, you can have it..." Of course it might be sensible to have background checks and licensing, but that's sheer socialism and big government meddling... ; ) John On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Tara Maya wrote: > I believe that?s called Switzerland. > > > > On Jan 29, 2017, at 6:58 PM, spike wrote: > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Rafal Smigrodzki > > - free machine guns for every man, woman and child?Rafa? > > > There is no such thing as a free machine gun. Someone has to pay for it. > If such a thing is to be provided, it should be up to the state governments > to supply them. > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Feb 2 00:31:26 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:31:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> Message-ID: <040001d27ceb$b1556c50$140044f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] John's idea On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:42 AM, spike > wrote: >? The USA did "debase" the currency somewhat in 2008, they should have debased it more, if they had the recovery from the Great Recession would have been faster?John K Clark Ja, it is a way of robbing from everyone to pay for our government spending more than it takes in. Since the US government does not does control the interest rate (the Federal Reserve does that) then the Federal Reserve protects the currency it issues. This makes the dollar an attractive trading medium all over the world, particularly in brutally poor countries (the ones with most of that 3.5 billion people who own less than 8 people) where one could argue the only real wealth present is the American currency used in transactions there. If the Federal Reserve debased American currency (to our benefit) then the value of the primary currency traded and owned by those 3.5 billion people in brutally poor countries is diminished. We could think of this is reverse Robin Hood effect: we would be robbing the poor to give to the rich. I object. Alternative: allow the government to spend only what it takes in. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 2 00:35:54 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:35:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: <040501d27cec$50c96e30$f25c4a90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Grigg >?This is the iconic and far-thinking Extropian list, and yet we are going to discuss mundane guns?!!!! ? John JOHN GRIGG! How the heck ya been, me lad? We have been wondering what had happened to you and such, worried like parents who hadn?t heard from their adventurous sons in a while. Hope all is well with ya bud. We missed ya. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 2 00:57:51 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:57:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> Message-ID: <042801d27cef$61f80d80$25e82880$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2017 3:00 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] John's idea On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:42 AM, spike > wrote: ?> >?Not at all. I have some. Bill Gates has some, the citizen of Niger has some. But none of that is ?the wealth? ?>?"The wealth" is the sum total of everybody's wealth.?.. John K Clark Ja, so perhaps this really does explain why there is a fundamental disconnect at some level, a branching point between me and a recently-retired POTUS. He commented: I think when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody. Barack Obama I cannot spread the wealth around, for I do not own it. I can only spread mine around. He cannot spread the wealth around, for he does not own it. He can only spread his around. That comment, made to Joe the Plumber on 16 October 2008 was clearly the wrong thing to say, for in many minds it sounded like he thought a POTUS has any say over the Canadian?s wealth, the Frenchman?s wealth, the Englishman?s wealth or the American?s wealth, Bill Gates? wealth or anyone?s. POTUS may hold that opinion and plenty do. But when someone running for POTUS utters that, it sounds a little like he is proposing a Communist revolution. In Communist nations, there definitely is a ?the wealth? and the government controls it. In Capitalism, the government does not. There is no ?we? involved in spreading the wealth. That is up to the people who own it. That being said, Bill Gates has become perhaps the greatest philanthropist of all time. I do commend him on what he is doing, forgive him for the bugs in PowerPoint for all those years. He?s good guy doing good things now. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 02:06:33 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 21:06:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] John's idea In-Reply-To: <042801d27cef$61f80d80$25e82880$@att.net> References: <025801d27c21$4886e250$d994a6f0$@att.net> <008101d27c32$47323f10$d596bd30$@att.net> <00ef01d27c4e$09e45d20$1dad1760$@att.net> <042801d27cef$61f80d80$25e82880$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:57 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > Bill Gates has become perhaps the greatest philanthropist of all time. I > do commend him on what he is doing, forgive him for the bugs in PowerPoint > for all those years. He?s good guy doing good things now. > ?I certainty agree with that. Bill Gates has already given away about 40 billion dollars, and he's still the richest man in the world, he's pledged to give away at least 95% of his money before he dies. And he seems to be giving it away in a very wise way, he's getting a lot of bang for the buck. Warren Buffett was so impressed by the smart way Gates is doing philanthropy he gave him the job of figuring out the best way give away his fortune too. If all rich people were like Gates and Buffett there would be no problem, but too many are more like Donald Trump. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 03:10:31 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 19:10:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > OK, that's the old way. I do not undo anything when I reply. Now when I > click on Reply, I get a blank page. Do you see a "..." at the bottom of the message space, after you click Reply but before you type anything? If so, click that: that's where GMail hides the message you're replying to, and clicking the "..." shows the message with the reply header and quoting all set up. The intention is, by default you don't need to copy and paste the message at all. Anyone not on GMail will just see what you're replying to, and you can see it too with a single click of the "..." (or multiple, if there's more than one "..."). Though the result is "top quoting" style, which is sometimes useful but "bottom quoting" (like I'm doing with this message) is preferred. I'm pretty sure this is the case for you, because the following appeared in your message - perhaps you just weren't aware of it. (If just a "..." appears below this for you, click it.) > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Dave Sill wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 5:24 PM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >>> >>> What Dave said in his post, but just to point out: the very fact that you >>> see a need to type "dave sill" to clarify your quote means that you are >>> quoting wrong. adrian >>> >>> Now tell me - what's wrong with that? >> >> >> It's manual, so you can get it wrong--like the Spike quote you attributed >> to me. The attribution is at the end of the quote, so one has to read the >> whole thing to see that it's a quote. It's not a quoting format used by >> anyone else here. >> >>> >>> I need to attribute the quote to the person who wrote it, eh? And I do >>> not understand 'quoting wrong'. >> >> >> Like I said, it's not a question or right or wrong. >> >>> >>> Punctuation? Maybe I am not doing it the Wiki way, but most of us having >>> been doing it this way as long as I have been in this group. Maybe I am >>> being dense here. >> >> >> Maybe you are. If you really think other people here are doing that, >> you're wrong. What you're doing sort of works, but it isn't ideal, which is >> why I tried to take the time to explain why and how to do it right. If you >> just don't care or prefer your way or whatever, then fine, continue doing >> what you're doing. But if you really can't see the differences between your >> way and the standard way, well, then you are being dense. >> >> You use Gmail, so it's automatically using the standard quoting method. >> You're having to manual undo that and redo it your way. For what benefit? >> >> -Dave >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 06:42:45 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 22:42:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:33 PM, John Grigg wrote: > This is the iconic and far-thinking Extropian list, and yet we are going to > discuss mundane guns?!!!! I think every citizen should have access to rail > guns and high powered lasers! And they will need home nuclear reactors to > power them... I am discussing this as a home defense measure, since "every > man's house is his castle." And well, you never know when your neighbor > will decide to come at you with fast attack drones! It has been noted that the attrition rate of any combat force is a function of the number of weapons shooting at it. Just as a theoretical exercise, how many helicopter drones - with a mix of machine guns and autoloading bazookas, 1 weapon per drone - do you think it would take to neutralize a typical brigade under ordinary conditions? Assume railguns, where the rails are considered part of the ammunition, for ease of manufacturing. From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 14:21:15 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 08:21:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > OK, that's the old way. I do not undo anything when I reply. Now when I > > click on Reply, I get a blank page. > > Do you see a "..." at the bottom of the message space, after you click > Reply but before you type anything? If so, click that: that's where > GMail hides the message you're replying to, and clicking the "..." > shows the message with the reply header and quoting all set up. > > ?Thanks for your help. Is this the way y'all want it? No Bill W at the > bottom? > > ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 2 14:36:17 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 06:36:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: <008701d27d61$b7435a70$25ca0f50$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 6:21 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Adrian Tymes > wrote: >>?Do you see a "..." at the bottom of the message space, after you click Reply but before you type anything? If so, click that: that's where GMail hides the message you're replying to, and clicking the "..." shows the message with the reply header and quoting all set up. ?>?Thanks for your help. Is this the way y'all want it? No Bill W at the bottom? BillW, anything you add to reduce ambiguity in who wrote what lines is perfectly acceptable and welcome. We have had guys who add their initials after every paragraph they write, if it is on a topic where it really matters who wrote it. Funny aside, kinda related. In classified documents, every paragraph has a letter in parentheses which refer to that paragraph only. If everything in that paragraph is unclassified there is a (U) at the start of that paragraph; otherwise (C ). If any comment within a paragraph contains anything classified, that paragraph gets (C ) as does the whole document. This led to all manner of silliness in our last election cycle. It was reported our own former SecState say on the record she thought all those letter (C )s in there were alphabetical markings, never wondering what happened to A and B, along with all the letters D thru T inclusive. That might be urban legend or a joke, but it was circulated. Attributions are required for classification, where it matters. If incorrect information is found marked as classified, somebody has to answer for how it got there. If found unintentional, there is the usual hell to pay. If found it was put there intentionally, there is a whole new level, 17 different kinds of hell to pay, all of them very bad for whoever dunnit. Do your best to reduce ambiguity on attributions. A BillW at the bottom of your post is always OK, a welcome thing. Mistakes happen. We won?t take your picture down off the piano. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Feb 2 15:17:22 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:17:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:21 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?Thanks for your help. Is this the way y'all want it? No Bill W at the >> bottom? >> > Almost. :-) You entered your message as if it were part of Adrian's. Make sure there's no gray bar at the beginning of the line when you type. Also, feel free to include a signature. Thanks, -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 02:01:53 2017 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 13:01:53 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On 2 February 2017 at 08:08, BillK wrote: > > Would you believe that Big Data got Trump elected? > (And possibly helped the Brexit vote). > > > > > Quotes: > > The Data That Turned the World Upside Down > > Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus > Jan 28 2017, 2:15pm > > Psychologist Michal Kosinski developed a method to analyze people in > minute detail based on their Facebook activity. Did a similar tool > help propel Donald Trump to victory? Two reporters from Zurich-based > Das Magazin went data-gathering. > ---------------- > > Very long article, but I found it fascinating. > > Oh yes indeed, I was going to post a link in, but figured I should probably read the whole thread before I just jumped in. Very very interesting. Especially the bit where they can use likes to model your personality, and the more things you like, the closer they get to building a very accurate picture of you. My main problem with social media like facebook is that they tend to be largely useless for conducting reasoned, lengthy discourse - and yet most mailing lists are defunct or heavily reduced in traffic due to the rise of facebook. Overall, this has been a terrible development when it comes to having actual discussions online, instead of just pithy quips. Most of the lists I'm on nowadays are pale shadows of their former selves, it's ice to see that this list is still going, and used. 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 spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 3 02:19:04 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:19:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: <021e01d27dc3$e4f03d50$aed0b7f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ddraig >..Overall, this has been a terrible development when it comes to having actual discussions online, instead of just pithy quips? Dwayne -- I propose a game or experiment wherein we attempt to participate in actual meaningful discussion using only pithy quips, arbitrarily restricted to a single sentence. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 03:16:34 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:16:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: <008701d27d61$b7435a70$25ca0f50$@att.net> References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> <008701d27d61$b7435a70$25ca0f50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:36 AM, spike wrote: > Attributions are required for classification, where it matters. If > incorrect information is found marked as classified, somebody has to answer > for how it got there. If found unintentional, there is the usual hell to > pay. If found it was put there intentionally, there is a whole new level, > 17 different kinds of hell to pay, all of them very bad for whoever dunnit. And if found intentional, but put there by Trump or one of his team? We've seen how he handles the unclassified truth, so the null hypothesis - in lieu of evidence (all of which would likely be classified) - is that he does the same with classified stuff. From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 3 03:42:05 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 19:42:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: <021e01d27dc3$e4f03d50$aed0b7f0$@att.net> References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> <021e01d27dc3$e4f03d50$aed0b7f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <023c01d27dcf$7dcf8520$796e8f60$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike >?I propose a game or experiment wherein we attempt to participate in actual meaningful discussion using only pithy quips, arbitrarily restricted to a single sentence?spike At one time, there were list rules forbidding single-sentence posts and replying to one?s own post, but I failed to see the sense in either decree, so I unofficially repealed both. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 08:32:56 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 03:32:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:33 PM, John Grigg wrote: > > > Is it not libertarian to say, "if you can afford it, you can have it..." > Of course it might be sensible to have background checks and licensing, > but that's sheer socialism and big government meddling... ; ) > ### Well, no government licensing for me, no sir, but before letting a stranger buy land in my cooperative, I would want them to show me proof of insurance against accidental nuclear weapon discharge. You don't want neighbors who are sloppy with their nukes! Also, I might feel suspicious about anybody who buys warheads over 5 megatons. Why would any reasonable person want a 10 megaton warhead? Stay reasonable, that's what I am telling myself every day :) Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 13:02:16 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 08:02:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Weird!? - He's not on Facebook In-Reply-To: References: <017c01d27ca1$61250280$236f0780$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:01 PM, ddraig wrote: > My main problem with social media like facebook is that they tend to be > largely useless for conducting reasoned, lengthy discourse - and yet most > mailing lists are defunct or heavily reduced in traffic due to the rise of > facebook. Overall, this has been a terrible development when it comes to > having actual discussions online, instead of just pithy quips. Most of the > lists I'm on nowadays are pale shadows of their former selves, it's ice to > see that this list is still going, and used. Is facebook/twitter the cause or the result of people's diminishing attention span? From sparge at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 15:18:03 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:18:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Shimon, robot musician Message-ID: https://www.futilitycloset.com/2017/02/02/shimon/ https://youtu.be/l9OUbqWHOSk You know the singularity has arrived when the robots start playing marimbas. Shimon, engineer Guy Hoffman?s robot musician, doesn?t play programmed music ? it improvises in ensembles with human players, communicating with a ?socially expressive head? and favoring musical ideas that are unlikely to be chosen by humans, so as to lead the performance in genuinely novel directions. ?The project, therefore, aims to combine human creativity, emotion, and aesthetic judgment with algorithmic computational capability of computers, allowing human and artificial players to cooperate and build off each other?s ideas,? notes the Georgia Tech Center for Music Technology, Shimon?s patron. ?Unlike computer- and speaker-based interactive music systems, an embodied anthropomorphic robot can create familiar, acoustically rich, and visual interactions with humans.? More at Georgia Tech. ---- Well, surprisingly, it doesn't totally suck. Of course it remains to be seen how good it really is. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From billh at ssec.wisc.edu Fri Feb 3 15:27:59 2017 From: billh at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 09:27:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] Responses to Asilomar AI Principles: transparency Message-ID: Here is my response to the recently published Asilomar AI Principles, that they should include transparency about the purpose and means of advanced AI systems: http://hplusmagazine.com/2017/02/02/asilomar-ai-principles-include-transparency-purpose-means-advanced-ai-systems/ Here is a response from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2017/feb/01/ai-artificial-intelligence-its-time-for-some-messy-democratic-discussions-about-the-future?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Here is a response from Nicolas Miailhe: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/governing-rise-ai-other-transformative-emerging-nicolas-miailhe?trk=prof-post From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 15:54:22 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:54:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 3:32 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ?> ? > I might feel suspicious about anybody who buys warheads over 5 megatons. > ?The founders of the Constitution ?in their stockings and silly wigs were undoubtedly thinking of muzzle loading muskets and flintlock pistols when they wrote it, but it can't be denied that the second amendment talks about the right to bear arms ?, and ? 10 megaton warhead ?s are most certainly arms. So if the literal wording not the intentions of the writer is all that matters then you should be allowed to buy ? 10 megaton warhead ?s at Walmarts. After all, t he founders ? weren't ?thinking of AK47s anymore than they were thinking of Thermonuclear Bombs, so if one is allowed why not the other? > ?>? > Why would any reasonable person want a 10 megaton warhead? > ?Oh I don't know, perhaps they dislike ?Mount Everest and would prefer a deep lake in its place. Or maybe they just enjoy spectacular fireworks. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 21:04:24 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:04:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? [GOV] In-Reply-To: References: <01fc01d27aa4$c97ccbf0$5c7663d0$@att.net> <80AED2BF-2449-481E-B6BD-7125266A2085@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:54 AM, John Clark wrote: > The founders of the Constitution in their stockings and silly wigs were undoubtedly thinking of muzzle loading muskets and flintlock pistols > when they wrote it, but it can't be denied that the second amendment talks about the right to bear arms, and 10 megaton warheads are most > certainly arms. So if the literal wording not the intentions of the writer is all that matters then you should be allowed to buy > 10 megaton warheads at Walmarts. After all, the founders weren't thinking of AK47s anymore than they were thinking of Thermonuclear Bombs, so if one is > allowed why not the other? I imagine the founders were thinking the second amendment would be about reserving the means to fight the government in much the same way the founders fought the British By that logic, we should be able to purchase Halliburton's latest at Walmarts Of course the government has more money, but it IS our money... From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 3 22:18:19 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 15:18:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> Message-ID: Stathis, I?m still having troubles trying to communicate with you. You keep getting distracted on irrelevant things, and missing what is important. Let me try the following to see if that helps. Let?s go back to our simple system that has 3 components. Or better, three sets of important functionality. There are two representations of knowledge, and a binding system that can bind the two representations together ? to create a composite qualitative conscious experience. The two representations of knowledge can be done with something that functions with a redness (like glutamate) or greenness (like glycine) qualities. The binding system puts them together so you can be aware of both of them at the same time as a diverse composite qualitative experience. Now, when you do the neural substitution on this system, just like you can do with big or little endian representations, you can fallaciously (for obvious reasons) argue that the redness or greenness functionality cannot exist at the hardware (or even functional level - as long as you include the function of redness and grenness qualities) level ? but must only exist at the abstracted computational level. You also said: ?The ?hard problem? is the question of why there should be any qualia at all. If you show that redness is associated with glutamate, you have not answered this question.? Which is again, getting miss directed away from what is really important here. Of course we don?t know why there is gravity, we just know what has gravity and how it performs, allowing us to fly in space. The same is true with qualia. We don?t need to know why whatever ?has? a redness experience function ? gives us the qualitative experiences it does, we just need to know what has this functionality, so we can detect it and use it to eff the ineffable and greatly expand our qualitative conscious experience abilities. Oh, and John, glutamate and glycine only have qualities we can experience in the hypothetical simplified qualitative world I talked about here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . How would conscious beings in such a simplified hypothetical world ?see? and detect these qualities in others brains. Once you understand the qualitative theory in this simplified hypothetical world, you can apply the same qualitative methods to apply it to our obviously more complex world ? to detect whatever it is that has a redness functionality, interpret it qualitatively correctly when you do detect it, eff the ineffable, and so on. On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 8:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > ?> ? >> Remember, that it is glutamate that has the redness quality. > > > ? > No molecule has the redness qualia or any other qualia, they are far too > simple for that. Glutamate may be able to produce the redness qualia but > only in association with certain specific brains organized in certain > specific ways. In other brains organized in different ways > ?? > glutamate > ? ? > could produce the blueness qualia or the pain qualia or no qualia > whatsoever. > ? > > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 4 04:22:03 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 15:22:03 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 4 February 2017 at 09:18, Brent Allsop wrote: Stathis, I?m still having troubles trying to communicate with you. You keep getting distracted on irrelevant things, and missing what is important. Let me try the following to see if that helps. Let?s go back to our simple system that has 3 components. Or better, three sets of important functionality. There are two representations of knowledge, and a binding system that can bind the two representations together ? to create a composite qualitative conscious experience. The two representations of knowledge can be done with something that functions with a redness (like glutamate) or greenness (like glycine) qualities. The binding system puts them together so you can be aware of both of them at the same time as a diverse composite qualitative experience. Now, when you do the neural substitution on this system, just like you can do with big or little endian representations, you can fallaciously (for obvious reasons) argue that the redness or greenness functionality cannot exist at the hardware (or even functional level - as long as you include the function of redness and grenness qualities) level ? but must only exist at the abstracted computational level. I don't see why it's obviously fallacious or obvious. You won't engage with what is the relatively simple question of *observable behaviour*. Humans have moving parts: molecules, ion currents, ultimately bones which are pulled by tendons connected to muscles which are controlled by nerves. Consider just these mechanical processes. Do you agree that they can be replicated using alternative materials and devices, for example tiny electric motors in place of actin-myosin in the process of exocytosis whereby neurotransmitters are released into the synapse, titanium rods in place of bones, artificial isotopes of potassium and sodium? Or do you think there is some theoretical reason (not just a practical, engineering reason) why this can't be done with particular components of a bilogical system - and if so, what is it that makes those components special? Please answer this considering *only observable behaviour*. Imagine you are a simple-minded engineer who has no idea about consciousness and your job is *only* to examine the part of the body you are assigned and design a replacement part using various electrical and mechanical nanocomponents. You also said: ?The ?hard problem? is the question of why there should be any qualia at all. If you show that redness is associated with glutamate, you have not answered this question.? Which is again, getting miss directed away from what is really important here. Of course we don?t know why there is gravity, we just know what has gravity and how it performs, allowing us to fly in space. The same is true with qualia. We don?t need to know why whatever ?has? a redness experience function ? gives us the qualitative experiences it does, we just need to know what has this functionality, so we can detect it and use it to eff the ineffable and greatly expand our qualitative conscious experience abilities. That's one explanation - that the "hard problem" is really a non-problem. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Feb 4 18:11:08 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 13:11:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <4b5d01b5-97c7-8b3d-6f01-c82516cbdcfb@gmail.com> <456281d0-feb8-0cff-a8c0-eee3b5a9b20b@gmail.com> <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2017 11:24 PM, "Stathis Papaioannou" wrote: Or do you think there is some theoretical reason (not just a practical, engineering reason) why this can't be done with particular components of a bilogical system - and if so, what is it that makes those components special? I know it was a typo, but I greatly enjoy the concept of a bi-logical system. I imagine a gestalt of opposite or orthogonal states of internally self-consistent modes; through their interaction emerges a hybrid behavior that makes little sense from either singular set of rules. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 4 21:15:09 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 15:15:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? Message-ID: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing-ourselves-to-death-neil-postman-trump-orwell-huxley?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 4 22:04:40 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:04:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 1:15 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing-ourselves-to-death-neil-postman-trump-orwell-huxley?utm_source=pocket &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits bill w Good article BillW, reminiscent of so many debates I had with my father-in-law who is much more a Huxley fan than I am, while I am more an Orwell fan than he. Brave New World is a book I found interesting, but not horrifying at all. It wasn?t clear to me that it was dystopian, certainly not all of it. He commented about how things changed over the years as he drove college students to sports events. He recalled how raucus those were and how they began to get quieter starting around 1985, to the point where twenty years later it would be nearly silent as the students sat back there gazing at computer screens, seldom saying a word to each other. I offered that this would make a driver?s job much easier. But the history teacher side of him found it far too creepy. I suggested the students were watching the lectures they missed for the event to which he was taking them. Soon the subject changed to another Huxleyan nightmare: designer babies. Oh the horror! Why? What would be so bad? We fertilize twenty embryos, let them divide about 5 times, select a cell from each, read the DNA, determine which one is most free of known genetic pathologies, implant. Obvious question: what do you do with the rest of them? My answer: leave them frozen. Who would ever use them? Why do we need to know that? But only the wealthy would have healthier babies! Ja. The article seems to think we are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, but I would argue that if one dies laughing, one does not literally perish in most cases, and even if so, that would be a good way to go. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 4 22:32:36 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 14:32:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <05e601d27f36$9e869f70$db93de50$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Subject: Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing-ourselves-to-death-neil-postman-trump-orwell-huxley?utm_source=pocket &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits bill w >?Good article BillW, reminiscent of so many debates I had with my father-in-law who is much more a Huxley fan than I am, while I am more an Orwell fan than he. >?Brave New World is a book I found interesting, but not horrifying at all. It wasn?t clear to me that it was dystopian, certainly not all of it. ? The article seems to think we are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, but I would argue that if one dies laughing, one does not literally perish in most cases, and even if so, that would be a good way to go?. Spike Background on those debates: my father-in-law is your classic hard rightwing sort, favorite president was Reagan etc. I am more an upwing moderate or even extreme moderate. The basic idea of my original post: Orwell wrote a clearly dystopian novel, one that horrifies me, but Huxley?s excellent thought-provoking Brave New World is not clearly dystopian, and I am not horrified. It occurred to me that there would be those who would not find Nineteen Eighty Four all that terribly unsettling, but are horrified by Huxley?s BNW. What kind of people would that be? Anyone here lose sleep over the risk of becoming BNW? Why? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 4 22:54:12 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 16:54:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:04 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Saturday, February 04, 2017 1:15 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/feb/02/amusing- > ourselves-to-death-neil-postman-trump-orwell-huxley? > utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits > > Spike wrote: > ? > The article seems to think we are in danger of amusing ourselves to death. > --------- > ?Now I may not be the one to talk about people in public places sitting > and staring at their cell phones - physicians' offices, for one - as I am > the one with a book or Kindle reading fiction? > ?. But it does seem that people don't want to use their brains to create > anything - they want it created for them by the entertainment industry, > which now might just include politics and the coverage of it. It may not be > about attention span at all. I did not watch any political thing on either > side last fall, but I'll bet Trump scored high in entertainment over the > dull as a stone age axe others in the Repub primaries.? > ?Surely we lead the world many times over in producing entertainment, if not the consumption of it, though I'll bet we are pretty high in that too. ? ?IQ hasn't diminished - it may even has risen. But what are most people doing with it? Not using it to understand more fully what is going on. TV, FAcebook and all the rest are sound bits and short videos, which not so much shorten attention span as not provide enough information to form a proper opinion of the content and the underlying issues.? So in the present age we have petabytes of entertainment thrown at us but where is there to go to find constructive, mostly objective discussion of the big issues? If these exist, they are not apparent to me and it they do I'll bet they are duller than that axe. It doesn't have to be that way. Once upon a time I adopted a psych 101 book written by a wormrunner - James McConnell. Easiest book to read I've ever used, and it was so good that my class average jumped from around middle C level (about 75%) to 83%. So popularizing serious content can be done by the right people. Now let's get that sort of thing on TV. As it is, we are drowning in the trivia of sports. reality shows, adult cartoons and all the rest. ?A colleague of mine in the English dept. and I agreed - going to class and giving a presentation is Showtime! You have to interest them and put on a show. Sounds degrading, doesn't it? Nah.? Just doing what is necessary. bill > ?w? > > > > > > > > Good article BillW, reminiscent of so many debates I had with my > father-in-law who is much more a Huxley fan than I am, while I am more an > Orwell fan than he. > > > > Brave New World is a book I found interesting, but not horrifying at all. > It wasn?t clear to me that it was dystopian, certainly not all of it. He > commented about how things changed over the years as he drove college > students to sports events. He recalled how raucus those were and how they > began to get quieter starting around 1985, to the point where twenty years > later it would be nearly silent as the students sat back there gazing at > computer screens, seldom saying a word to each other. > > > > I offered that this would make a driver?s job much easier. But the > history teacher side of him found it far too creepy. I suggested the > students were watching the lectures they missed for the event to which he > was taking them. > > > > Soon the subject changed to another Huxleyan nightmare: designer babies. > Oh the horror! Why? What would be so bad? We fertilize twenty embryos, > let them divide about 5 times, select a cell from each, read the DNA, > determine which one is most free of known genetic pathologies, implant. > Obvious question: what do you do with the rest of them? My answer: leave > them frozen. Who would ever use them? Why do we need to know that? But > only the wealthy would have healthier babies! Ja. > > > > ?? > The article seems to think we are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, > but I would argue that if one dies laughing, one does not literally perish > in most cases, and even if so, that would be a good way to go. > > > > 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 pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 4 23:33:29 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 23:33:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 4 February 2017 at 22:04, spike wrote: > Brave New World is a book I found interesting, but not horrifying at all. > It wasn?t clear to me that it was dystopian, certainly not all of it. He > commented about how things changed over the years as he drove college > students to sports events. He recalled how raucus those were and how they > began to get quieter starting around 1985, to the point where twenty years > later it would be nearly silent as the students sat back there gazing at > computer screens, seldom saying a word to each other. > > The article seems to think we are in danger of amusing ourselves to death, > but I would argue that if one dies laughing, one does not literally perish > in most cases, and even if so, that would be a good way to go. > I'm sure that amusing ourselves to death has been suggested as a solution to the Fermi paradox. You are right that it is not dystopian - it's irresistibly attractive! Every advanced civ develops virtual reality worlds that are far more interesting than the boring real world. Combine that with uploaded intelligences processing so fast that the outside world isn't just in slow motion, it seems frozen. That's why uploaded intelligences don't bother with the real world. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 4 23:23:38 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 15:23:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? ?>?A colleague of mine in the English dept. and I agreed - going to class and giving a presentation is Showtime! You have to interest them and put on a show. Sounds degrading, doesn't it? Nah.? Just doing what is necessary. billw Ja. As a content provider, a college professor is being required to compete against plenty of alternative means of mastering material. Many of those alternatives are becoming most competent. The Civilization game does a marvelous job of communicating a history meme so long underemphasized: culture is driven by technology. In the Civilization battles, it is clear that he who gets the best technology soonest wins. In that game the barbarians are a constant menace, but if a Civilization player invests in a few key technologies, he can get archery. Then when he does, he can just stand back from the barbarians at a safe distance and twang em off. What I am looking for now is a game that is analogous to Civilization but teaches actual history. Anyone know? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 00:10:38 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 18:10:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 5:23 PM, spike wrote: > > > > ? > > What I am looking for now is a game that is analogous to Civilization but > teaches actual history. > > > > Anyone know? > > > > spike > No, but consider this: I get really antsy in movies about books I have read. A lot worse, of course, but mainly it's that the action goes very slowly. Now consider the content of the typical textbook: highly condensed information unless it's an extremely wordy book. In short, you can learn much more in a text than some movie or video or, presumably, game in the same amount of time. Take From Dawn to Decadence, by Jacques Barzun. Most interesting history book I've ever read by far, perhaps mainly because it's a history of ideas, not kings and dates. bill w > ? > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *?* > > > > ?>?A colleague of mine in the English dept. and I agreed - going to class > and giving a presentation is Showtime! You have to interest them and put > on a show. Sounds degrading, doesn't it? Nah.? Just doing what is > necessary. billw > > > > Ja. As a content provider, a college professor is being required to > compete against plenty of alternative means of mastering material. Many of > those alternatives are becoming most competent. > > > > The Civilization game does a marvelous job of communicating a history meme > so long underemphasized: culture is driven by technology. In the > Civilization battles, it is clear that he who gets the best technology > soonest wins. In that game the barbarians are a constant menace, but if a > Civilization player invests in a few key technologies, he can get archery. > Then when he does, he can just stand back from the barbarians at a safe > distance and twang em off. > > > > What I am looking for now is a game that is analogous to Civilization but > teaches actual history. > > > > Anyone know? > > > > 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 Feb 5 00:05:52 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 16:05:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <063401d27f43$9e0d64e0$da282ea0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >...I'm sure that amusing ourselves to death has been suggested as a solution to the Fermi paradox. You are right that it is not dystopian - it's irresistibly attractive! >...Every advanced civ develops virtual reality worlds that are far more interesting than the boring real world. Combine that with uploaded intelligences processing so fast that the outside world isn't just in slow motion, it seems frozen. That's why uploaded intelligences don't bother with the real world. >...BillK _______________________________________________ Ja. I think that is what happens with a lot of teenagers: they get caught up in the world of celebrities, sports people and entertainers. Everything changes so fast in that world that anything much outside of that seems to be crawling. I am like that with technology: I am caught up in that world where things change quickly. BillK that was a cool insight on linking it over to Fermi. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 00:26:02 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 16:26:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> The job of the SF writer is not so much to predict the future as to prevent it. Perhaps Orwell warned us sufficiently to prevent Nineteen Eighty Four, but Huxley may not have necessarily intended to prevent all the things he saw in Brave New World. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 01:02:50 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:02:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM, spike wrote: > The job of the SF writer is not so much to predict the future as to > prevent it. > > ?Now just what the hell does that mean? Are you stealing a quote? Many tech advances have been predicted by SF writers. bill w? > > > Perhaps Orwell warned us sufficiently to prevent Nineteen Eighty Four, but > Huxley may not have necessarily intended to prevent all the things he saw > in Brave New World. > > > > 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 Feb 5 04:44:13 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 20:44:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> Message-ID: <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 5:03 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM, spike > wrote: The job of the SF writer is not so much to predict the future as to prevent it. ?Now just what the hell does that mean? Are you stealing a quote? Many tech advances have been predicted by SF writers. bill w? Ja, I was stealing a quote but I don?t know who it is from and only vaguely remember where I heard it, perhaps 30 or 40 yrs ago. If you go into bookstores (are there any of those left?) some of them are arranged such that SciFi/Horror is one of their genres. Stories need conflict, so much of traditional SciFi is about future warfare, or contains something dire. There is a Star Trek episode I vaguely remember from a looooong long time ago (I never watched the reruns, so I am relying on childhood memories) where Kirk and the crew find a planet somewhere where the inhabitants have worked out all the serious problems, found solutions to their most pressing issues, had no conflicts with anything in the local cubic parsec, so it was a kind of resort planet where there is nothing to do but play. Kirk was puzzled by it all. He couldn?t find anything to shoot. Please local Star Trek experts, what was that episode? The one where Kirk finally realizes that such a planet would be cool, no serious problems anywhere, inhabitants live long healthy fun lives. But he really needed to go fight something. He couldn?t fathom a place with nothing to do but play. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 06:25:47 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2017 22:25:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> Message-ID: <009601d27f78$b0a01550$11e03ff0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:44 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 5:03 PM To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM, spike > wrote: The job of the SF writer is not so much to predict the future as to prevent it. ?Now just what the hell does that mean? Are you stealing a quote? Many tech advances have been predicted by SF writers. bill w? Ja, I was stealing a quote but I don?t know who it is from and only vaguely remember where I heard it, perhaps 30 or 40 yrs ago?spike OK now I remember, I heard this quote in high school in 1978, and it was Ted Sturgeon, who was quoting Ray Bradbury who may have heard it from Frank Herbert: Dear Quote Investigator: I once read an interview with a science fiction writer in which he was asked about predicting the future. The interviewer was disappointed that some of the technological developments heralded in science fiction never seemed to actually happen. The response from the author was unexpected and haunting: I don?t try to predict the future. I try to prevent it. I think this answer confused the interviewer, but I understood it. The dystopian stories like Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, The Sheep Look Up, and The Machine Stops are not attempting to predict the future. They are trying to prevent the futures that they describe. The identity of the interviewee is fuzzy in my mind and so is the exact wording. Could you look into this quote? Quote Investigator: The earliest expression found by QI appears in 1977 from the typewriter of the SF great Theodore Sturgeon who credits the remark to another SF luminary Ray Bradbury, the author of Fahrenheit 451 and the Martian Chronicles. In 1978 the idea is attributed to another famed SF writer, Frank Herbert, the author of Dune? http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/19/prevent-the-future/ I was really into dystopian future fiction in those years, but back to the original thought: I never really saw Brave New World as all that dark. OK so the guy dies, there is that. In 1984, one of them disappears, but it isn?t clear he perished, and the others live to copulate, which is way cool when one is a teenager who never gets any attention. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 15:31:28 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:31:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 5:04 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > Brave New World is a book I found interesting, but not horrifying at all. > > ?I agree, it wouldn't be my ideal society but I can think of worse. As I recall in Brave New World they even generously granted a request by one the characters who didn't fit in because he had too much brainpower, I think it was Helmholtz Watson, to go to a island and live out his life and do whatever he wanted there. ? > ?> ? > It wasn?t clear to me that it was dystopian, certainly not all of it. > Arthur C Clarke wrote a couple of novels that were supposed to depict dystopian societies (Against The Fall Of Night and The City And the Stars) in them everybody was happy, healthy, educated and rich. Oh and by the way they were immortal too. As a kid I figured there must be something wrong with me because I didn't think that sounded so bad, and even now I feel it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. At the end of the books the hero makes everything right and people are no longer happy or immortal but it's supposed to be better for society. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 16:26:45 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 10:26:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <009601d27f78$b0a01550$11e03ff0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> <009601d27f78$b0a01550$11e03ff0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 12:25 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *spike > *Sent:* Saturday, February 04, 2017 8:44 PM > *To:* 'ExI chat list' > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? > > > > > > I was really into dystopian future fiction in those years, but back to the > original thought: I never really saw Brave New World as all that dark. OK > so the guy dies, there is that. In 1984, one of them disappears, but it > isn?t clear he perished, and the others live to copulate, which is way cool > when one is a teenager who never gets any attention. > > > > spike > > > ? > > > *?I don't remember thinking much about either book. But I remembered them > well and thought everyone should read them, so it must have had some impact > on me. Animal Farm, now, was really scary. Was that how things worked in > the real world? It turned out that it was far more representative of > reality than BNW or 1984.? I don't read the dystopian stuff now: life is > too short for such darkness. Why anyone would like Romeo and Juliet is > beyond me: the both die. Where's the fun in that? Sweet sorrow? Not my > gig. Do we learn that life is unfair? Better ways to do that.* > > * I routinely turn to the end of a fiction book and see if my characters > survived - happy endings is what I like and scifi has traditionally done > that well - almost no tragedy at all. I can't say that the quote has much > contact with reality. That is, I don't think the books will warn anyone > and prevent any future. How many people's lives have been shaped by > fiction? Or even nonfiction, in the case of most people?. (I have to > exclude religion here, as many have been shaped by religious writings - > another category of fiction. So, I am a cynic: shoot m?e.) Spike - you > want others to read 1984 - what for? What are they going to do after > reading it?* > ?bill w? > *?? * > . > ?bill w? > *?* > *? * > > > *?* > *rom:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > ] *On Behalf Of *William Flynn > Wallace > *Sent:* Saturday, February 04, 2017 5:03 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? > > > > On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM, spike wrote: > > The job of the SF writer is not so much to predict the future as to > prevent it. > > > > ?Now just what the hell does that mean? Are you stealing a quote? Many > tech advances have been predicted by SF writers. bill w? > > > > > > Ja, I was stealing a quote but I don?t know who it is from and only > vaguely remember where I heard it, perhaps 30 or 40 yrs ago?spike > > > > > > > > OK now I remember, I heard this quote in high school in 1978, and it was > Ted Sturgeon, who was quoting Ray Bradbury who may have heard it from Frank > Herbert: > > > > > > *Dear Quote Investigator*: I once read an interview with a science > fiction writer in which he was asked about predicting the future. The > interviewer was disappointed that some of the technological developments > heralded in science fiction never seemed to actually happen. The response > from the author was unexpected and haunting: > > *I don?t try to predict the future. I try to prevent it.* > > I think this answer confused the interviewer, but I understood it. The > dystopian stories like Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, The Sheep > Look Up, and The Machine Stops are not attempting to predict the future. > They are trying to prevent the futures that they describe. The identity of > the interviewee is fuzzy in my mind and so is the exact wording. Could you > look into this quote? > > *Quote Investigator*: The earliest expression found by *QI* appears in > 1977 from the typewriter of the SF great Theodore Sturgeon who credits the > remark to another SF luminary Ray Bradbury, the author of Fahrenheit 451 > and the Martian Chronicles. In 1978 the idea is attributed to another famed > SF writer, Frank Herbert, the author of Dune? > > > > http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/19/prevent-the-future/ > > > > > > I was really into dystopian future fiction in those years, but back to the > original thought: I never really saw Brave New World as all that dark. OK > so the guy dies, there is that. In 1984, one of them disappears, but it > isn?t clear he perished, and the others live to copulate, which is way cool > when one is a teenager who never gets any attention. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 16:41:44 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 08:41:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <005601d27fce$bcc4f2a0$364ed7e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >?Arthur C Clarke wrote a couple of novels that were supposed to depict dystopian societies (Against The Fall Of Night and The City And the Stars) in them everybody was happy, healthy, educated and rich. Oh and by the way they were immortal too. As a kid I figured there must be something wrong with me because I didn't think that sounded so bad, and even now I feel it beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. At the end of the books the hero makes everything right and people are no longer happy or immortal but it's supposed to be better for society?John K Clark Ja, Clarke was good at the more utopian novels. I liked his stuff, even while reading the darker material. I considered it more likely to pan out the Clarke way than the alternatives. John is Sir Arthur a relative of you? No one knew the answer to that Star Trek episode where they arrived to find there were no problems to solve. It has been over 45 years since I saw it, so I don?t really know, but as I recall, that was the episode where they kept thinking something somewhere must be wrong with a place where there was nothing to do but play. They never really did find it. Cocoon is an example of an alien species which comes to earth from a place where the inhabitants were peaceful and immortal. They take aged humans to their planet where they have the option of healthy immortality, but they choose to return to earth and perish. Oy vey. I liked the movies anyway, and consider them well done for the 1980s. It was a fun what-if: a group of sick old people get access to the fountain of youth. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 16:48:20 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 08:48:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> <009601d27f78$b0a01550$11e03ff0$@att.net> Message-ID: <005b01d27fcf$a8b68f20$fa23ad60$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?Spike - you want others to read 1984 - what for? What are they going to do after reading it? bill w? They will read and watch for power grabbers in government, then oppose them at every step. Had it been written at the time, the framers of the constitution would have been big Orwell fans, for they had a lot of firsthand experience in what happens when power grabbers are allowed to ascend to power. I see it as the greatest risk of our times; the risk isn?t going down but rather it is going up. Considering recent events, is it not clear that Americans must stand up to government power grabbing? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 17:32:15 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:32:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> Message-ID: On 5 February 2017 at 04:44, spike wrote: > There is a Star Trek episode I vaguely remember from a looooong long time > ago (I never watched the reruns, so I am relying on childhood memories) > where Kirk and the crew find a planet somewhere where the inhabitants have > worked out all the serious problems, found solutions to their most pressing > issues, had no conflicts with anything in the local cubic parsec, so it was > a kind of resort planet where there is nothing to do but play. Kirk was > puzzled by it all. He couldn?t find anything to shoot. > > Please local Star Trek experts, what was that episode? The one where Kirk > finally realizes that such a planet would be cool, no serious problems > anywhere, inhabitants live long healthy fun lives. But he really needed to > go fight something. He couldn?t fathom a place with nothing to do but play. > It might be - "This Side of Paradise" is the twenty-fourth episode of the first season of the original science fiction television series, Star Trek. It was first broadcast on March 2, 1967, and was repeated on August 10, 1967. The episode was written by D. C. Fontana and Jerry Sohl (using the pseudonym Nathan Butler), and directed by Ralph Senensky. The title is taken from the poem "Tiare Tahiti" by Rupert Brooke and the novel "This Side of Paradise" by F. Scott Fitzgerald. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 17:36:29 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:36:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <062001d27f3d$b75f62a0$261e27e0$@att.net> <064301d27f46$6f7e6b80$4e7b4280$@att.net> <004a01d27f6a$807248c0$8156da40$@att.net> Message-ID: <009001d27fd6$63167230$29435690$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK It might be - "This Side of Paradise" is the twenty-fourth episode of the first season of the original science fiction television series, Star Trek. It was first broadcast on March 2, 1967, and was repeated on August 10, 1967. The episode was written by D. C. Fontana and Jerry Sohl (using the pseudonym Nathan Butler), and directed by Ralph Senensky. The title is taken from the poem "Tiare Tahiti" by Rupert Brooke and the novel "This Side of Paradise" by F. Scott Fitzgerald. BillK _______________________________________________ Excellent, I thought it had Paradise in the name. Astonishing to think I was 6 yrs old at the time, nearly 50 yrs ago but I remember that one. We lived for Star Trek in those days. I think I did see that one twice, because we carefully watched the reruns in the summer. I want to see if Kirk really does say with puzzlement: So... there really is nothing to do here... but... play? spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 17:55:52 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:55:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <005601d27fce$bcc4f2a0$364ed7e0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <005601d27fce$bcc4f2a0$364ed7e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:41 AM, spike wrote: ?> ? > John is Sir Arthur a relative of you? > > ?Sir Arthur had a "e" at the end of his name, so as much as I'd love to say I'm Arthur C Clarke's illegitimate son as far as I know I'm not, my father called himself Arthur E Clark. ? John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 18:09:49 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:09:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <005601d27fce$bcc4f2a0$364ed7e0$@att.net> Message-ID: >?Spike - you want others to read 1984 - what for? What are they going to do after reading it? bill w? ? ? On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:41 AM, spike ? They will read and watch for power grabbers in government, then oppose them at every step.: > > ?? > ?But Spike, that has been going on since somebody picked up the first club > and bashed an opponent. Is not every person in gov. a power grabber or > attached to one so that some might trickle down? > ?Now I can see teaching these things to youngsters, making them pessimistic and cynical before their times. Why shouldn't they see reality after a childhood of fantasy and being kept in a closet, so to speak? But to anyone over 30, power grabbing is old hat. No? I suggest that what we want is power grabbers who support us and our issues. The more power they have, the better for us. Right? 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 Sun Feb 5 18:18:58 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:18:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV Message-ID: Spike, how in the world do you expect to stop those in power without having any power on our side? No, that's not what you are saying at all, I suspect. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/magazine/a-resistance-stands-against-trump-but-what-will-it-stand-for.html?_r=0 We are not alone. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 20:39:25 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:39:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <005601d27fce$bcc4f2a0$364ed7e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00fd01d27fef$f1309550$d391bff0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:10 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? >?Spike - you want others to read 1984 - what for? What are they going to do after reading it? bill w ? On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:41 AM, spike >? They will read and watch for power grabbers in government, then oppose them at every step.: ?? ?>?But Spike, that has been going on since somebody picked up the first club and bashed an opponent. Is not every person in gov. a power grabber or attached to one so that some might trickle down? ?So we have a legal system to control that urge to bash as much as possible. >?Now I can see teaching these things to youngsters, making them pessimistic and cynical before their times? Nay for an understanding power lust makes them optimistic and cynical. It is never before their time to be optimistic and cynical. Teach the young at every opportunity what power does to people. >?Why shouldn't they see reality after a childhood of fantasy and being kept in a closet, so to speak? But to anyone over 30, power grabbing is old hat. No? No. Old hat or otherwise, power grabbing is a bad thing. >?I suggest that what we want is power grabbers who support us and our issues. The more power they have, the better for us. Right? bill w? On the contrary. Distributed power is the better for us. Distributed power takes advantage of distributed smartness and goodness in people rather than contributes to the base passions of the power grabbers. Power grabbers are already corrupt when they get power; they have a head start on those who go in honest but are corrupted by the morally corrosive influence of power. Even if they are on your side, power grabbers are really on their own side. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 20:43:49 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 12:43:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:19 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV Spike, how in the world do you expect to stop those in power without having any power on our side? No, that's not what you are saying at all, I suspect. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/magazine/a-resistance-stands-against-trump-but-what-will-it-stand-for.html?_r=0 We are not alone. bill w Fortunately it has already been established a long time ago and encoded into our legal system to control power grabbers. Stand by BillW, start your countdown. The current US leader whose name I cannot recall is taking actions likely to get himself impeached. His comments about going forward with his immigration plans in spite of a court decision and an appeals court affirmation lead me to think he will do something overtly illegal. When he does? let... the games? BEGIN! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 21:12:57 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 15:12:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV In-Reply-To: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> References: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> Message-ID: see bottom On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:43 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:19 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV > > > > Spike, how in the world do you expect to stop those in power without > having any power on our side? No, that's not what you are saying at all, I > suspect. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/magazine/a-resistance- > stands-against-trump-but-what-will-it-stand-for.html?_r=0 > > We are not alone. > > bill w > > > > > > Fortunately it has already been established a long time ago and encoded > into our legal system to control power grabbers. Stand by BillW, start > your countdown. The current US leader whose name I cannot recall is taking > actions likely to get himself impeached. His comments about going forward > with his immigration plans in spite of a court decision and an appeals > court affirmation lead me to think he will do something overtly illegal. > When he does? let... the games? BEGIN! > > > > spike > ?Who do you think the Repubs would rather have in office? T or Pence? I am betting on Pence.? > ?bill w? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 21:16:51 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 15:16:51 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? In-Reply-To: <00fd01d27fef$f1309550$d391bff0$@att.net> References: <05c601d27f32$af648ae0$0e2da0a0$@att.net> <005601d27fce$bcc4f2a0$364ed7e0$@att.net> <00fd01d27fef$f1309550$d391bff0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 2:39 PM, spike wrote: ? Even if they are on your side, power grabbers are really on their own side. spike ? Yes, well, try to find someone in the beltway that isn't. He/she just needs to follow our agenda to get our contributions and I can't say that I care how big his ego is. Big ego is attractive to men and women alike. bill w > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Sunday, February 05, 2017 10:10 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Huxley or Orwell - who got it right? > > > > >?Spike - you want others to read 1984 - what for? What are they going > to do after reading it? bill w > > ? > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 11:41 AM, spike ? > > They will read and watch for power grabbers in government, then oppose > them at every step.: > > > > ?? > > ?>?But Spike, that has been going on since somebody picked up the first > club and bashed an opponent. Is not every person in gov. a power grabber > or attached to one so that some might trickle down? > > > > ?So we have a legal system to control that urge to bash as much as > possible. > > >?Now I can see teaching these things to youngsters, making them > pessimistic and cynical before their times? > > Nay for an understanding power lust makes them optimistic and cynical. It > is never before their time to be optimistic and cynical. Teach the young > at every opportunity what power does to people. > > >?Why shouldn't they see reality after a childhood of fantasy and being > kept in a closet, so to speak? But to anyone over 30, power grabbing is > old hat. No? > > No. Old hat or otherwise, power grabbing is a bad thing. > > >?I suggest that what we want is power grabbers who support us and our > issues. The more power they have, the better for us. Right? bill w? > > > > On the contrary. Distributed power is the better for us. Distributed > power takes advantage of distributed smartness and goodness in people > rather than contributes to the base passions of the power grabbers. Power > grabbers are already corrupt when they get power; they have a head start on > those who go in honest but are corrupted by the morally corrosive influence > of power. Even if they are on your side, power grabbers are really on > their own side. > > > > 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 pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 21:22:11 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 21:22:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV In-Reply-To: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> References: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 5 February 2017 at 20:43, spike wrote: > Fortunately it has already been established a long time ago and encoded into > our legal system to control power grabbers. Stand by BillW, start your > countdown. The current US leader whose name I cannot recall is taking > actions likely to get himself impeached. His comments about going forward > with his immigration plans in spite of a court decision and an appeals court > affirmation lead me to think he will do something overtly illegal. When he > does? let... the games? BEGIN! > Hmmm.... the polls seem to show that Trump has majority popular support for his immigration restrictions. Could be interesting if the judges rule against Trump and the majority of the people support his rebellion. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 5 21:31:00 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 13:31:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV In-Reply-To: References: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <015801d27ff7$2660bf50$73223df0$@att.net> ?Who do you think the Repubs would rather have in office? T or Pence? I am betting on Pence.? Billw Ya think? Of course they would and so would I. And I am not even a Republican (I was at one time.) But think about it, neither is that guy who ran and won, thinly disguised as a Republican. The party met with him after he won the nomination and came away reporting that he knew nothing about their platform and zero interest in learning it or promoting it. They were already lost before the competition even started, but think about it: the Republican party started to fight slavery. It won. But that was a long time ago. What is it fighting now and why? Repeat questions with its mainstream opponent party. My prediction: he will be out before next year?s super bowl contest. If so he will leave a weakened office of the presidency in the mirror and an empowered congress. There might be a downside to that somewhere, but I don?t know what it is. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Sun Feb 5 22:10:53 2017 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 23:10:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Am I the only one freaked out by this? In-Reply-To: References: <021601d2769c$2b772510$82656f30$@att.net> <004801d276a7$d372ae50$7a580af0$@att.net> <00d601d276b3$70e75cc0$52b61640$@att.net> <00ec01d276b6$2b1f9060$815eb120$@att.net> <027301d27730$403e5c90$c0bb15b0$@att.net> <00c201d27779$b57a1230$206e3690$@att.net> Message-ID: <85ff019e-43c6-b999-ad7f-65febf4054e5@libero.it> Il 26/01/2017 13:42, Dave Sill ha scritto: > That's an alternative fact. Frankly, I don't understand the objection to > requiring a state-issued ID to vote. There is none. Maybe, just maybe, the problem with Univesity (why not High Schools?) ID card is about responsibility of the issuers. Can the issuer be a felon? A non citizen? Something else? On the other way, maybe Universities can not really be trusted? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-03/berkeley-antifa-attacker-unmasked-uc-employee-cnn-and-young-turks-lookin%E2%80%99-so-dumb I would suggest an ID Card linkd to a blockchain proof of ID. Like a photo on the Bitcoin blockchain lined to the status of "felon" or "citizen" or "other" -- Mirco Romanato -- Mirco Romanato From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 5 23:18:47 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 17:18:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV In-Reply-To: <015801d27ff7$2660bf50$73223df0$@att.net> References: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> <015801d27ff7$2660bf50$73223df0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 3:31 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > ?Who do you think the Repubs would rather have in office? T or Pence? I > am betting on Pence.? Billw > > > > > My prediction: he will be out before next year?s super bowl contest. If > so he will leave a weakened office of the presidency in the mirror and an > empowered congress. There might be a downside to that somewhere, but I > don?t know what it is. > > > > spike > ?I can think of thousands of down sides to the Repubs getting their way for the next four years. Deregulate everything for a start; ignore the climate, environment, set Wall St. loose to screw up again? ?; get rid of even modest gun laws and tons more. With or without T. 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 04:14:31 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2017 21:14:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> Message-ID: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Hi Stathis, Does this help? When you talk about "*only observable behaviour*" you are assuming a definition of "observe" that is completely qualia blind. There isn't something special about qualia, but there is something qualitative, which can't be observed by simple "*only observable behavior*". You can detect and represent qualia with any physical behavior you want, but you can't know what an abstracted representation of what you have detected qualitatively represents unless you know how to interpret that behavior back to the real thing. In order to include the qualities of conscious experience into a definition of observation, you must provide a definition of observe that properly qualitative interpretation of any abstracted representations into whatever it is that has a redness quality being observed. I imagine a simple-minded engineer working to design a perfect glutamate detection system that can't be fooled into giving a false response by any other not glutamate substance or system. It is certainly possible that some complex set of functions or physical behavior, like glutamate, is one and the same as something we can experience as a complex redness, right and that nothing else will have the same physical function or quality? Once your simple minded engineered glutamate detector is working, it will never find anything that is glutamate in the rods and wires engineered to simulate glutamate in an abstracted way. Also, without having the correct translation hardware, you will not be able to interpret any abstracted representations of glutamate (redness), as if it was glutamate (redness), let alone, think it is real glutamate (real redness). And of course, when you neural substitute the glutamate and its detector, out for some simulation of the same, the neural substitutuion fallacy should be obvious. It will only work when you completely swap out the entire detection system with something else that knows how to properly interpret that which is not glutamate, as if it was representing it. Only then will it be *observably the same behavior*. But nobody will claim that your simulation has any real glutamate being used for representations of knowledge - glutamate being something that physically functions identically with glutamate (or redness) without any hardware interpretation mechanism being required. Brent On 2/3/2017 9:22 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I don't see why it's obviously fallacious or obvious. You won't engage > with what is the relatively simple question of *observable behaviour*. > Humans have moving parts: molecules, ion currents, ultimately bones > which are pulled by tendons connected to muscles which are controlled > by nerves. Consider just these mechanical processes. Do you agree that > they can be replicated using alternative materials and devices, for > example tiny electric motors in place of actin-myosin in the process > of exocytosis whereby neurotransmitters are released into the synapse, > titanium rods in place of bones, artificial isotopes of potassium and > sodium? Or do you think there is some theoretical reason (not just a > practical, engineering reason) why this can't be done with particular > components of a bilogical system - and if so, what is it that makes > those components special? Please answer this considering . Imagine you > are a simple-minded engineer who has no idea about consciousness and > your job is *only* to examine the part of the body you are assigned > and design a replacement part using various electrical and mechanical > nanocomponents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 07:12:34 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 18:12:34 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brent Allsop wrote: But I'm only asking at this point about *observable behaviour*, ignoring qualia completely. It is my contention that if we do this the qualia will emerge automatically and it is your contention that they won't. But in order to figure out who is right you have to consider the experiment as I have proposed it; you can't assume your conclusion in the premises. I don't understand this paragraph. Do you accept that it is possible to make a reliable glutamate detector, a device that tells us only if the substance in question is glutamate or not? That's all OK - the glutamate detector just detects glutamate, real glutamate, and nothing but glutamate. So if there is glutamate in the synaptic cleft, the detector in the postsynaptic neuron will detect it. In this example the detector is not replacing glutamate but the glutamate detector in the neurons, which is the glutamate receptor protein. To replace the glutamate you would have to find another molecule or nanostructure that is released when glutamate would be released and that stimulates the glutamate receptors in the same way as glutamate does. So are you agreeing that if you replace the glutamate with a substance which is released when glutamate would be released and which stimulates the glutamate receptors when glutamate would stimulate the receptors, the neurons would fire in the same order and for the same duration as the unmodified neurons would have? Remember this is just a question about the *observable behaviour* of the system. Once you answer this question (yes or no) you can then answer the additional question of whether the red qualia would be preserved in the modified system. --Stathis Papaioannou On 6 February 2017 at 15:14, Brent Allsop wrote: > When you talk about "*only observable behaviour*" you are assuming a > definition of "observe" that is completely qualia blind. There isn't > something special about qualia, but there is something qualitative, which > can't be observed by simple "*only observable behavior*". You can detect > and represent qualia with any physical behavior you want, but you can't > know what an abstracted representation of what you have detected > qualitatively represents unless you know how to interpret that behavior > back to the real thing. In order to include the qualities of conscious > experience into a definition of observation, you must provide a definition > of observe that properly qualitative interpretation of any abstracted > representations into whatever it is that has a redness quality being > observed. > > I imagine a simple-minded engineer working to design a perfect glutamate > detection system that can't be fooled into giving a false response by any > other not glutamate substance or system. It is certainly possible that > some complex set of functions or physical behavior, like glutamate, is one > and the same as something we can experience as a complex redness, right and > that nothing else will have the same physical function or quality? > > Once your simple minded engineered glutamate detector is working, it will > never find anything that is glutamate in the rods and wires engineered to > simulate glutamate in an abstracted way. Also, without having the correct > translation hardware, you will not be able to interpret any abstracted > representations of glutamate (redness), as if it was glutamate (redness), > let alone, think it is real glutamate (real redness). > > > And of course, when you neural substitute the glutamate and its detector, > out for some simulation of the same, the neural substitutuion fallacy > should be obvious. It will only work when you completely swap out the > entire detection system with something else that knows how to properly > interpret that which is not glutamate, as if it was representing it. Only > then will it be *observably the same behavior*. But nobody will claim that > your simulation has any real glutamate being used for representations of > knowledge - glutamate being something that physically functions identically > with glutamate (or redness) without any hardware interpretation mechanism > being required. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 12:03:53 2017 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:03:53 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: $0.02 "But I'm only asking at this point about *observable behaviour*, ignoring qualia completely. It is my contention that if we do this the qualia will emerge automatically and it is your contention that they won't. But in order to figure out who is right you have to consider the experiment as I have proposed it; you can't assume your conclusion in the premises." There are two different tests of a hypothesis that (e.g. Stathis position) H1= "There is no brain physics that is essential for qualia" ==================== TEST 1) Assume it's true, pay no regard to any brain physics. Compute models of the brain. Compare/contrast behaviour of a test system artificial brain with natural brain. Draw conclusions about H1. TEST 2) Assume it's false. Select particular physics that might be held accountable for qualia. Replicate the targetted physics.Compare/contrast behaviour of a test system artificial brain with natural brain a test system artificial brain with the TEST 1 equivalent. Draw conclusions about H1. ==================== For seventy five years we have thrown out the physics and done 100% TEST 1). To throw that physics out all you have to do is use a computer. Nobody in the entire history of science has ever made this stupid oversight before and it's a mistake that could only be made ONCE: when computers were invented. I can think of a perfect candidate for test 2). It's right there in front of everyone. The proof? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2) combined in a proper science activity. But why should my favorite be right? Got some other physics you think does it .... so what!? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2). Same story. My particular choice for essential physics is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about qualia origins. Magical emergentism or denialism or quantum squiggly-doodahs. If you confine yourself to TEST 1 forever you are screwed. Until we start getting testing right and do fully formed actual empirical science the science is malformed and this whole argument is likewise screwed. This science is embrarassingly and egregiously broken. Colin On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Brent Allsop wrote: > > definition of "observe" that is completely qualia blind. There isn't > something special about qualia, but there is something qualitative, which > can't be observed by simple "*only observable behavior*". You can detect > and represent qualia with any physical behavior you want, but you can't > know what an abstracted representation of what you have detected > qualitatively represents unless you know how to interpret that behavior > back to the real thing. In order to include the qualities of conscious > experience into a definition of observation, you must provide a definition > of observe that properly qualitative interpretation of any abstracted > representations into whatever it is that has a redness quality being > observed.> > > But I'm only asking at this point about *observable behaviour*, ignoring > qualia completely. It is my contention that if we do this the qualia will > emerge automatically and it is your contention that they won't. But in > order to figure out who is right you have to consider the experiment as I > have proposed it; you can't assume your conclusion in the premises. > > detection system that can't be fooled into giving a false response by any > other not glutamate substance or system. It is certainly possible that > some complex set of functions or physical behavior, like glutamate, is one > and the same as something we can experience as a complex redness, right and > that nothing else will have the same physical function or quality?> > > I don't understand this paragraph. Do you accept that it is possible to > make a reliable glutamate detector, a device that tells us only if the > substance in question is glutamate or not? > > never find anything that is glutamate in the rods and wires engineered to > simulate glutamate in an abstracted way. Also, without having the correct > translation hardware, you will not be able to interpret any abstracted > representations of glutamate (redness), as if it was glutamate (redness), > let alone, think it is real glutamate (real redness).> > > That's all OK - the glutamate detector just detects glutamate, real > glutamate, and nothing but glutamate. So if there is glutamate in the > synaptic cleft, the detector in the postsynaptic neuron will detect it. In > this example the detector is not replacing glutamate but the glutamate > detector in the neurons, which is the glutamate receptor protein. To > replace the glutamate you would have to find another molecule or > nanostructure that is released when glutamate would be released and that > stimulates the glutamate receptors in the same way as glutamate does. > > out for some simulation of the same, the neural substitutuion fallacy > should be obvious. It will only work when you completely swap out the > entire detection system with something else that knows how to properly > interpret that which is not glutamate, as if it was representing it. Only > then will it be *observably the same behavior*. But nobody will claim that > your simulation has any real glutamate being used for representations of > knowledge - glutamate being something that physically functions identically > with glutamate (or redness) without any hardware interpretation mechanism > being required.> > > So are you agreeing that if you replace the glutamate with a substance > which is released when glutamate would be released and which stimulates the > glutamate receptors when glutamate would stimulate the receptors, the > neurons would fire in the same order and for the same duration as the > unmodified neurons would have? Remember this is just a question about the > *observable behaviour* of the system. Once you answer this question (yes or > no) you can then answer the additional question of whether the red qualia > would be preserved in the modified system. > > > --Stathis Papaioannou > > On 6 February 2017 at 15:14, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> When you talk about "*only observable behaviour*" you are assuming a >> definition of "observe" that is completely qualia blind. There isn't >> something special about qualia, but there is something qualitative, which >> can't be observed by simple "*only observable behavior*". You can detect >> and represent qualia with any physical behavior you want, but you can't >> know what an abstracted representation of what you have detected >> qualitatively represents unless you know how to interpret that behavior >> back to the real thing. In order to include the qualities of conscious >> experience into a definition of observation, you must provide a definition >> of observe that properly qualitative interpretation of any abstracted >> representations into whatever it is that has a redness quality being >> observed. >> >> I imagine a simple-minded engineer working to design a perfect glutamate >> detection system that can't be fooled into giving a false response by any >> other not glutamate substance or system. It is certainly possible that >> some complex set of functions or physical behavior, like glutamate, is one >> and the same as something we can experience as a complex redness, right and >> that nothing else will have the same physical function or quality? >> >> Once your simple minded engineered glutamate detector is working, it will >> never find anything that is glutamate in the rods and wires engineered to >> simulate glutamate in an abstracted way. Also, without having the correct >> translation hardware, you will not be able to interpret any abstracted >> representations of glutamate (redness), as if it was glutamate (redness), >> let alone, think it is real glutamate (real redness). >> >> >> And of course, when you neural substitute the glutamate and its detector, >> out for some simulation of the same, the neural substitutuion fallacy >> should be obvious. It will only work when you completely swap out the >> entire detection system with something else that knows how to properly >> interpret that which is not glutamate, as if it was representing it. Only >> then will it be *observably the same behavior*. But nobody will claim that >> your simulation has any real glutamate being used for representations of >> knowledge - glutamate being something that physically functions identically >> with glutamate (or redness) without any hardware interpretation mechanism >> being required. >> > > > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 16:13:29 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 16:13:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon., 6 Feb. 2017 at 11:05 pm, Colin Hales wrote: > $0.02 > > "But I'm only asking at this point about *observable behaviour*, ignoring > qualia completely. It is my contention that if we do this the qualia will > emerge automatically and it is your contention that they won't. But in > order to figure out who is right you have to consider the experiment as I > have proposed it; you can't assume your conclusion in the premises." > > There are two different tests of a hypothesis that (e.g. Stathis position) > H1= "There is no brain physics that is essential for qualia" > > ==================== > TEST 1) > Assume it's true, pay no regard to any brain physics. Compute models of > the brain. Compare/contrast behaviour of a test system artificial brain > with natural brain. Draw conclusions about H1. > > TEST 2) > Assume it's false. Select particular physics that might be held > accountable for qualia. Replicate the targetted physics.Compare/contrast > behaviour of > > a test system artificial brain with natural brain > a test system artificial brain with the TEST 1 equivalent. > > Draw conclusions about H1. > ==================== > For seventy five years we have thrown out the physics and done 100% TEST > 1). To throw that physics out all you have to do is use a computer. Nobody > in the entire history of science has ever made this stupid oversight before > and it's a mistake that could only be made ONCE: when computers were > invented. > > I can think of a perfect candidate for test 2). It's right there in front > of everyone. The proof? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2) combined in a proper science > activity. But why should my favorite be right? Got some other physics you > think does it .... so what!? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2). Same story. My > particular choice for essential physics is irrelevant. > > It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about qualia origins. Magical > emergentism or denialism or quantum squiggly-doodahs. If you confine > yourself to TEST 1 forever you are screwed. Until we start getting testing > right and do fully formed actual empirical science the science is malformed > and this whole argument is likewise screwed. > > This science is embrarassingly and egregiously broken. > I don't understand your objection to the experiment. Are you saying that it is possible to replicate the behaviour of the brain without regard to the physics, but that from this no conclusion can be reached about the qualia? Or are you saying that it isn't possible to replicate the behaviour of the brain without using the original brain physics? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 7 15:55:07 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:55:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Colin, Thanks for jumping in, and your input is worth much more than $0.02 to me. I really like what I think you might be saying but I don't yet fully understand it. I have the same question Stathis has. Also, there is something I think everyone is missing, it has to do with how might we do qualitative observation, or eff the ineffable? Stathis always only thinks about "*observable behavior*" which is not qualitative observation/comparison and assumes a miracle will happen and quali will arise in some way. He never includes critically important functionality in the system, and just swaps the critically important parts out, with neural substitution, and thinks the problems will resolve themselves in some other super natural or miraculous way. You mentioned "compare/contrast behavior of" various systems. But this doesn't include any method of effing the ineffable. For example, you could compare and contrast all the functions of two people's brains as they pick strawberries. But how would you know if one person had red/green inverted qualia from the other. This is the important functionality Stathis neural substitutes away in a qualia blind way. In order to qualitatively observe things or eff the ineffable, you have to be able to do things like ask: Is your redness more like my redness, or is it more like my greenness? There must be qualitative representations of knowledge, and there must be some way to bind multiple qualitatively different things together in a way that they produce a composite awareness of all of the qualities representing the leaves and the strawberries. You seem to be leaning towards qualia being dependent on brain physics in some way, as do I. But I think we must remember that glutamate being what reprsents redness knowledge in our conscious experience is just a temporary hypothetical simplified example that provides the required functionality in a falsifiable way (qualitative representations of knowledge being bound together into a composite or comparable qualitative experience). There are lots of other things you can substitute for glutamate in an effingly testable way, possibly including something like stathis is proposing. I would give anything if I could replace glutamate with some other "functionally emergent?" neural correlate of a redness quality that was consistent with the way Stathis thinks about things. The only problem is, as far as I can see, it is logically impossible to proved the required functionality with what stathis is describing - i.e. detectable qualitative representations of knowledge, and a binding system that can combine them into qualitatively divers composite conscious experience. Stathis never provides a way to not be qualia blind, he never provides a way to eff the ineffable, and really, there is no detectable qualia in Stathis system, so there is no way to falsify his way of thinking, or know way to know if something is picking the strawberries because they are represented with greenness, or because they are represented with redness. Within stathis way of thinking, there is no way to scientifically eff the ineffable or qualitatively observe anything, resulting in his theory being not qualitatively testable / comparable. Brent Allsop On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 5:03 AM, Colin Hales wrote: > $0.02 > > "But I'm only asking at this point about *observable behaviour*, ignoring > qualia completely. It is my contention that if we do this the qualia will > emerge automatically and it is your contention that they won't. But in > order to figure out who is right you have to consider the experiment as I > have proposed it; you can't assume your conclusion in the premises." > > There are two different tests of a hypothesis that (e.g. Stathis position) > H1= "There is no brain physics that is essential for qualia" > > ==================== > TEST 1) > Assume it's true, pay no regard to any brain physics. Compute models of > the brain. Compare/contrast behaviour of a test system artificial brain > with natural brain. Draw conclusions about H1. > > TEST 2) > Assume it's false. Select particular physics that might be held > accountable for qualia. Replicate the targetted physics.Compare/contrast > behaviour of > > a test system artificial brain with natural brain > a test system artificial brain with the TEST 1 equivalent. > > Draw conclusions about H1. > ==================== > For seventy five years we have thrown out the physics and done 100% TEST > 1). To throw that physics out all you have to do is use a computer. Nobody > in the entire history of science has ever made this stupid oversight before > and it's a mistake that could only be made ONCE: when computers were > invented. > > I can think of a perfect candidate for test 2). It's right there in front > of everyone. The proof? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2) combined in a proper science > activity. But why should my favorite be right? Got some other physics you > think does it .... so what!? TEST 1) _AND_ TEST 2). Same story. My > particular choice for essential physics is irrelevant. > > It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about qualia origins. Magical > emergentism or denialism or quantum squiggly-doodahs. If you confine > yourself to TEST 1 forever you are screwed. Until we start getting testing > right and do fully formed actual empirical science the science is malformed > and this whole argument is likewise screwed. > > This science is embrarassingly and egregiously broken. > > Colin > > > > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> Brent Allsop wrote: >> >> > definition of "observe" that is completely qualia blind. There isn't >> something special about qualia, but there is something qualitative, which >> can't be observed by simple "*only observable behavior*". You can detect >> and represent qualia with any physical behavior you want, but you can't >> know what an abstracted representation of what you have detected >> qualitatively represents unless you know how to interpret that behavior >> back to the real thing. In order to include the qualities of conscious >> experience into a definition of observation, you must provide a definition >> of observe that properly qualitative interpretation of any abstracted >> representations into whatever it is that has a redness quality being >> observed.> >> >> But I'm only asking at this point about *observable behaviour*, ignoring >> qualia completely. It is my contention that if we do this the qualia will >> emerge automatically and it is your contention that they won't. But in >> order to figure out who is right you have to consider the experiment as I >> have proposed it; you can't assume your conclusion in the premises. >> >> > detection system that can't be fooled into giving a false response by any >> other not glutamate substance or system. It is certainly possible that >> some complex set of functions or physical behavior, like glutamate, is one >> and the same as something we can experience as a complex redness, right and >> that nothing else will have the same physical function or quality?> >> >> I don't understand this paragraph. Do you accept that it is possible to >> make a reliable glutamate detector, a device that tells us only if the >> substance in question is glutamate or not? >> >> > will never find anything that is glutamate in the rods and wires engineered >> to simulate glutamate in an abstracted way. Also, without having the >> correct translation hardware, you will not be able to interpret any >> abstracted representations of glutamate (redness), as if it was glutamate >> (redness), let alone, think it is real glutamate (real redness).> >> >> That's all OK - the glutamate detector just detects glutamate, real >> glutamate, and nothing but glutamate. So if there is glutamate in the >> synaptic cleft, the detector in the postsynaptic neuron will detect it. In >> this example the detector is not replacing glutamate but the glutamate >> detector in the neurons, which is the glutamate receptor protein. To >> replace the glutamate you would have to find another molecule or >> nanostructure that is released when glutamate would be released and that >> stimulates the glutamate receptors in the same way as glutamate does. >> >> > detector, out for some simulation of the same, the neural substitutuion >> fallacy should be obvious. It will only work when you completely swap out >> the entire detection system with something else that knows how to properly >> interpret that which is not glutamate, as if it was representing it. Only >> then will it be *observably the same behavior*. But nobody will claim that >> your simulation has any real glutamate being used for representations of >> knowledge - glutamate being something that physically functions identically >> with glutamate (or redness) without any hardware interpretation mechanism >> being required.> >> >> So are you agreeing that if you replace the glutamate with a substance >> which is released when glutamate would be released and which stimulates the >> glutamate receptors when glutamate would stimulate the receptors, the >> neurons would fire in the same order and for the same duration as the >> unmodified neurons would have? Remember this is just a question about the >> *observable behaviour* of the system. Once you answer this question (yes or >> no) you can then answer the additional question of whether the red qualia >> would be preserved in the modified system. >> >> >> --Stathis Papaioannou >> >> On 6 February 2017 at 15:14, Brent Allsop wrote: >> >>> When you talk about "*only observable behaviour*" you are assuming a >>> definition of "observe" that is completely qualia blind. There isn't >>> something special about qualia, but there is something qualitative, which >>> can't be observed by simple "*only observable behavior*". You can detect >>> and represent qualia with any physical behavior you want, but you can't >>> know what an abstracted representation of what you have detected >>> qualitatively represents unless you know how to interpret that behavior >>> back to the real thing. In order to include the qualities of conscious >>> experience into a definition of observation, you must provide a definition >>> of observe that properly qualitative interpretation of any abstracted >>> representations into whatever it is that has a redness quality being >>> observed. >>> >>> I imagine a simple-minded engineer working to design a perfect glutamate >>> detection system that can't be fooled into giving a false response by any >>> other not glutamate substance or system. It is certainly possible that >>> some complex set of functions or physical behavior, like glutamate, is one >>> and the same as something we can experience as a complex redness, right and >>> that nothing else will have the same physical function or quality? >>> >>> Once your simple minded engineered glutamate detector is working, it >>> will never find anything that is glutamate in the rods and wires engineered >>> to simulate glutamate in an abstracted way. Also, without having the >>> correct translation hardware, you will not be able to interpret any >>> abstracted representations of glutamate (redness), as if it was glutamate >>> (redness), let alone, think it is real glutamate (real redness). >>> >>> >>> And of course, when you neural substitute the glutamate and its >>> detector, out for some simulation of the same, the neural substitutuion >>> fallacy should be obvious. It will only work when you completely swap out >>> the entire detection system with something else that knows how to properly >>> interpret that which is not glutamate, as if it was representing it. Only >>> then will it be *observably the same behavior*. But nobody will claim that >>> your simulation has any real glutamate being used for representations of >>> knowledge - glutamate being something that physically functions identically >>> with glutamate (or redness) without any hardware interpretation mechanism >>> being required. >>> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 pharos at gmail.com Tue Feb 7 16:09:44 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 16:09:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Happy Song Message-ID: Now I'm REALLY Happy! :) Quote: After one final round of tweaks from Heap, we went for a different kind of test. We assembled about 20 of the babies in one room and played them the song all together. If you ever met an excited toddler or young baby, you will know that two and a half minutes is a long time to hold the attention of even one child, let alone two dozen. When The Happy Song played we were met by a sea of entranced little faces. This final bit wasn?t the most scientific as tests go but it definitely convinced me that we had a hit on our hands. --------------- BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 7 18:16:53 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:16:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Happy Song In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:09 AM, BillK wrote: > Now I'm REALLY Happy! :) > ?(from the link) Most systematic work has found young babies have clear preferences for consonance over dissonance and can remember the tempo and timbre of music they?ve heard before. Babies prefer the female voice but like it even more when it takes on the qualities of ?motherese? (the high-energy singsong tone we all naturally adopt when talking to babies)? ------------------ ?An interesting sidelight to this is that babies (and who knows how much older people have to be before this preference is lost, if ever) do not like the low voice of Daddy and other men. I scares them easily. Makes sense: their mother's voice is the one they heard for nine months and Daddy's voice was much further away. Now take a look at teen idol singers: high voices, even falsetto, from guys. Few if any basses (since I don't listen to pop I can't say about today's voices on CD or radio or MTV, whatever). Low voices that come to mind: Johnny Cash?, Tennessee Ernie Ford, not exactly teen idols. Even when they have a low voice they sing at the top of their range. Did you ever hear a villain in a movie with a high voice? And when war, conflict of any kind come on the movie screen you hear huge bass instruments booming out music in a minor key (darker to most ears). You have to wonder just how much of our musical preference is innate or possibly due to the sounds fetuses heard in the womb. More research is to come,says the article. I'd play some operatic basses to fetuses and see what happens! bill w > babies-happy-72309> > > Quote: > After one final round of tweaks from Heap, we went for a different > kind of test. We assembled about 20 of the babies in one room and > played them the song all together. If you ever met an excited toddler > or young baby, you will know that two and a half minutes is a long > time to hold the attention of even one child, let alone two dozen. > When The Happy Song played we were met by a sea of entranced little > faces. This final bit wasn?t the most scientific as tests go but it > definitely convinced me that we had a hit on our hands. > --------------- > > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 06:13:30 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 06:13:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed., 8 Feb. 2017 at 2:56 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Colin, > > Thanks for jumping in, and your input is worth much more than $0.02 to > me. I really like what I think you might be saying but I don't yet fully > understand it. I have the same question Stathis has. > > Also, there is something I think everyone is missing, it has to do with > how might we do qualitative observation, or eff the ineffable? Stathis > always only thinks about "*observable behavior*" which is not qualitative > observation/comparison and assumes a miracle will happen and quali will > arise in some way. He never includes critically important functionality in > the system, and just swaps the critically important parts out, with neural > substitution, and thinks the problems will resolve themselves in some other > super natural or miraculous way. > I think the critically important part is the behaviour of the system, not a particular substance or physics. Intuitively, this seems more likely because consciousness has evolved with information processing, a behaviour of the system rather than isolated components of the system. Brains evolved with what materials happened to be available, and could have evolved with completely different neurotransmitters, for example, or even a completely different chemistry. It seems implausible that through luck we ended up with the only materials that lead to consciousness. And I don't see why you should consider this "miraculous" but have no problem with qualia being attached to particular substrates such as glutamate, which you said when commenting on the "hard problem" in an earlier post that you would simply accept as a brute fact. Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the neural component you think is essential for particular qualia. By "what you think will happen" I mean both what do you think the behaviour of the person with the brain will be like - will it change or stay the same? - and what do you think the qualia of the person will be like - will they change or stay the same? Surely I have put this question in a clear enough way (if not, tell me), and surely with all the thinking you have done on this subject you will have an answer, even if you think the question is unimportant or misses the point. You mentioned "compare/contrast behavior of" various systems. But this > doesn't include any method of effing the ineffable. For example, you could > compare and contrast all the functions of two people's brains as they pick > strawberries. But how would you know if one person had red/green inverted > qualia from the other. This is the important functionality Stathis neural > substitutes away in a qualia blind way. > > In order to qualitatively observe things or eff the ineffable, you have to > be able to do things like ask: Is your redness more like my redness, or is > it more like my greenness? There must be qualitative representations of > knowledge, and there must be some way to bind multiple qualitatively > different things together in a way that they produce a composite awareness > of all of the qualities representing the leaves and the strawberries. > > You seem to be leaning towards qualia being dependent on brain physics in > some way, as do I. But I think we must remember that glutamate being what > reprsents redness knowledge in our conscious experience is just a temporary > hypothetical simplified example that provides the required functionality in > a falsifiable way (qualitative representations of knowledge being bound > together into a composite or comparable qualitative experience). There are > lots of other things you can substitute for glutamate in an effingly > testable way, possibly including something like stathis is proposing. I > would give anything if I could replace glutamate with some other > "functionally emergent?" neural correlate of a redness quality that was > consistent with the way Stathis thinks about things. The only problem is, > as far as I can see, it is logically impossible to proved the required > functionality with what stathis is describing - i.e. detectable qualitative > representations of knowledge, and a binding system that can combine them > into qualitatively divers composite conscious experience. Stathis never > provides a way to not be qualia blind, he never provides a way to eff the > ineffable, and really, there is no detectable qualia in Stathis system, so > there is no way to falsify his way of thinking, or know way to know if > something is picking the strawberries because they are represented with > greenness, or because they are represented with redness. Within stathis > way of thinking, there is no way to scientifically eff the ineffable or > qualitatively observe anything, resulting in his theory being not > qualitatively testable / comparable. > > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 16:15:15 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:15:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] star trek Message-ID: So it's a slow week for our group. So, some trivia: remember the opening scenes from Star Trek? The ship, the words "Go where no man has gone before". Did you ever think of sex during that? The phallic ship, the virgin reference? (It took me awhile, but being the post Freudian that I am, I got it.) bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 17:24:52 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 10:24:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, You said: "Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the neural component you think is essential for particular qualia." I thought I have answered this many times, so thanks for letting me know that I'm still not communicating. Let me try to clearly answer this specific question: Absolutely, yes, according to a qualitative blind definition of "*observable behaviour*" the behaviour would be the same. That is why I always talk about two people behaving identically (finding and picking strawberries), yet they have inverted red/green qualia. Since the "*observable behaviour*" is qualia blind, it sees the identical behaviour of the two people behaving the same, but it is blind to the different behaviors of the inverted qualitative awareness. When you include in the system, the behaviour that is the redness awareness, and the detectably different behaviour that is the greenness awareness - the external behaviour is the same, but they are finding the strawberry for inverted behavioural reasons or they are finding the strawberry for qualitatively inverted initial causal behaviours. Again, what is required is some well defined or testable way to qualitatively eff ineffable qualities. What makes something ineffable is the fact that an abstracted representation like the word red, does not have a redness quality. So without having some kind of way to know how to interpret an abstracted representation to get back to the original quality of the composite knowledge being observed to know the intended qualitative meaning of a word like red, one remains qualia blind. So, you must have some kind of minimal awareness behavioural requirements like including two qualitatively diverse representations of knowledge, and a way to bind them together to form a composite qualitative conscious awareness. This diverse composite qualitative awareness behaviour needs to be the behavioural mechanism that enables the system to answer questions like: "No, my qualitative knowledge of red is more like your qualitative knowledge of green." There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist theories. I only use glutamate, because it is the simplest and most straight forward to understand. I've tried to find some functional way the behaviour of redness knowledge could have distinguishable from greenness behavioural properties, but not only can I not do it, it seems impossible. You said: "I don't see why you should consider this 'miraculous'". To me, if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way to to do this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a functionalist theory, then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it is some kind of "miracle." In order for one to not think it is simply magic, someone must falsify the belief that it can't be done, by providing any kind of theoretically possible way to observe qualitatively diverse awareness behaviour in a detectable effing of the ineffable way. Brent Allsop On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I think the critically important part is the behaviour of the system, not > a particular substance or physics. Intuitively, this seems more likely > because consciousness has evolved with information processing, a behaviour > of the system rather than isolated components of the system. Brains > evolved with what materials happened to be available, and could have > evolved with completely different neurotransmitters, for example, or even a > completely different chemistry. It seems implausible that through luck we > ended up with the only materials that lead to consciousness. > > And I don't see why you should consider this "miraculous" but have no > problem with qualia being attached to particular substrates such as > glutamate, which you said when commenting on the "hard problem" in an > earlier post that you would simply accept as a brute fact. > > Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I > have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were > made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the > neural component you think is essential for particular qualia. By "what you > think will happen" I mean both what do you think the behaviour of the > person with the brain will be like - will it change or stay the same? - and > what do you think the qualia of the person will be like - will they change > or stay the same? Surely I have put this question in a clear enough way (if > not, tell me), and surely with all the thinking you have done on this > subject you will have an answer, even if you think the question is > unimportant or misses the point. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 17:32:57 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:32:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Me myself, no, even knowing some might take it that way. It was obviously meant in the exploration sense - even once they updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) On Feb 8, 2017 8:16 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: So it's a slow week for our group. So, some trivia: remember the opening scenes from Star Trek? The ship, the words "Go where no man has gone before". Did you ever think of sex during that? The phallic ship, the virgin reference? (It took me awhile, but being the post Freudian that I am, I got it.) 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 Feb 8 17:33:23 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 09:33:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:15 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] star trek >?So it's a slow week for our group. So, some trivia: remember the opening scenes from Star Trek? The ship, the words "Go where no man has gone before". >?Did you ever think of sex during that? The phallic ship, the virgin reference? (It took me awhile, but being the post Freudian that I am, I got it.) >?bill w Well, no. But that was only because I was 7 years old at the time. Ten years later, I would have easily gotten the phallic angle, the whole triple set along with what could vaguely be said to resemble a diaphragm or possibly a still undeployed birth control device, ja I get that. As I get older, I totally get Freud too. It wasn?t that he was crazy at all; just a horny bastard. Well, sure I can relate, but we horny bastards are people too and should be treated with dignity and respect. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 18:40:52 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 18:40:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 4:25 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > You said: > > "Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I > have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were > made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the > neural component you think is essential for particular qualia." > > I thought I have answered this many times, so thanks for letting me know > that I'm still not communicating. Let me try to clearly answer this > specific question: > > Absolutely, yes, according to a qualitative blind definition of > "*observable behaviour*" the behaviour would be the same. That is why I > always talk about two people behaving identically (finding and picking > strawberries), yet they have inverted red/green qualia. Since the > "*observable behaviour*" is qualia blind, it sees the identical behaviour > of the two people behaving the same, but it is blind to the different > behaviors of the inverted qualitative awareness. > If changing the glutamate receptors changes red qualia to green, then changing the receptors in half the brain should invert the qualia that half of the brain is responsible for. So if the subject sees a field of strawberries after the change, one half if the strawberries will look red and the other half will look green. Yet the subject will not notice a change, and will tell you that all the strawberries look red, just as before. Or to change the experiment slightly, as a result of some neural substitution all of the visual qualia disappear, but the subject doesn't notice, continues to describe red strawberries as before, and is able to pick the strawberries as before. Would you still insist that the qualia have been inverted or eliminated even though the subject can notice no internal difference and the experimenter can notice no external difference? In what sense is a change in qualia a change if there is neither a subjective nor objective difference? When you include in the system, the behaviour that is the redness > awareness, and the detectably different behaviour that is the greenness > awareness - the external behaviour is the same, but they are finding the > strawberry for inverted behavioural reasons or they are finding the > strawberry for qualitatively inverted initial causal behaviours. > You talk about a "detectably different behaviour awareness" but you agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same. Again, what is required is some well defined or testable way to > qualitatively eff ineffable qualities. What makes something ineffable is > the fact that an abstracted representation like the word red, does not have > a redness quality. So without having some kind of way to know how to > interpret an abstracted representation to get back to the original quality > of the composite knowledge being observed to know the intended qualitative > meaning of a word like red, one remains qualia blind. > > So, you must have some kind of minimal awareness behavioural requirements > like including two qualitatively diverse representations of knowledge, and > a way to bind them together to form a composite qualitative conscious > awareness. This diverse composite qualitative awareness behaviour needs to > be the behavioural mechanism that enables the system to answer questions > like: "No, my qualitative knowledge of red is more like your qualitative > knowledge of green." > That would be difficult, if I can't even notice when my own qualia change or disappear! There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of > detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist > theories. I only use glutamate, because it is the simplest and most > straight forward to understand. I've tried to find some functional way the > behaviour of redness knowledge could have distinguishable from greenness > behavioural properties, but not only can I not do it, it seems impossible. > You said: "I don't see why you should consider this 'miraculous'". To me, > if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way to to do > this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a functionalist > theory, then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it > is some kind of "miracle." In order for one to not think it is simply > magic, someone must falsify the belief that it can't be done, by providing > any kind of theoretically possible way to observe qualitatively diverse > awareness behaviour in a detectable effing of the ineffable way. > You've said you don't find it problematic that qualia might be associated with a substance but you do find it problematic that they might be associated with a process. I don't see why you would have this intuition. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 21:10:48 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:10:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:33 AM, spike wrote: ?As I get older, I totally get Freud too. It wasn?t that he was crazy at all; just a horny bastard. Well, sure I can relate, but we horny bastards are people too and should be treated with dignity and respect. spike ? ?Freud was right about so many things, and wrong about more than that. When he was right, it was amazing. When he was wrong, he was extremely wrong. But no one has ever challenged his take on humanity: sex and aggression are the dominant drives in humans. The unconscious plays a huge role in our lives - maybe the largest one by far. Lately the metaphors are like this: the ego is a person riding an elephant, and has a great deal of control, but when the elephant wants to ignore the rider's direction there is little that can be done. These are not from Freudians, btw, but the ideas are definitely his (and he is getting little credit nowadays - people are hung up on his wrong ideas, such as oral, anal, Oedipal stages, etc.) There is evidence that one of Freud's hangups was sex, and that he was something of a prude, all of which did not seem to influence his theories. bill w? > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2017 8:15 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] star trek > > > > >?So it's a slow week for our group. So, some trivia: remember the > opening scenes from Star Trek? The ship, the words "Go where no man has > gone before". > > > > >?Did you ever think of sex during that? The phallic ship, the virgin > reference? (It took me awhile, but being the post Freudian that I am, I > got it.) > > > > >?bill w > > > > > > > > Well, no. But that was only because I was 7 years old at the time. Ten > years later, I would have easily gotten the phallic angle, the whole triple > set along with what could vaguely be said to resemble a diaphragm or > possibly a still undeployed birth control device, ja I get that. > > > > As I get older, I totally get Freud too. It wasn?t that he was crazy at > all; just a horny bastard. Well, sure I can relate, but we horny bastards > are people too and should be treated with dignity and respect. > > > > 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 Wed Feb 8 21:22:22 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:22:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 12:24 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > ? > according to a qualitative blind definition of "*observable behaviour*" > the behaviour would be the same. That is why I always talk about two > people behaving identically (finding and picking strawberries), yet they > have inverted red/green qualia. > ?Science is empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter, if the behavior of 2 things is identical ?then it would be impossible by definition to distinguish between them scientifically, in fact the very phrase "inverted qualia" would have no scientific meaning because the inversion produces no observable difference; you continue to pick strawberries exactly as you did before the inversion. Even subjectively it would make no difference, if I could somehow reach into your brain and switch your red and green qualia not only would your external objective behavior be identical but your memory of what eatable strawberry fruit and inedible strawberry leaves look like would change too, so you would have no way of knowing I'd done anything at all. If switching qualia makes no difference objectively and it makes no difference subjectively then just what difference would it make? What does "inverting qualia" even mean? Nothing as far as I can tell. Apparently the important thing about qualia is not their absolute value but the consistency of the relationship one qualia has with another over time. The important difference between you and me isn't that our qualia are different, the important thing is the way the qualia are organized is different. > > ?> ? > To me, if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way > to to do this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a > functionalist theory, > ?Theories don't detect facts, facts disprove theories.? A theory may say my red qualia is the same as your red qualia, but what evidence is there that the theory is correct? There is none and there can never be because the truth or falsehood of the theory would make no observable difference or subjective difference. > ?> ? > then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it is > some kind of "miracle." > ?There are only 2 possibilities, any chain of "what caused that?" questions, including "what caused that qualia?", either comes to an end with a brute fact or it doesn't and the chain continues on for infinity. ?Which one is a miracle? > ?> ? > There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of > detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist > theories. > ?Coming up with qualia theories is remarkably easy because there are no facts they must fit, but coming up with qualia theories that are useful is another thing entirely. ? ? John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 21:33:32 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:33:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, You said: "You talk about a 'detectably different behaviour awareness' but you agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same." But I only said it would be the same for external behavior that can be qualia blind, like, picking strawberries. If you include the internal behavior or the qualitative behavior of the knowledge itself that is required when asking questions like: "Does your knowledge of red behave like my redness, or like my greenness?" the behavior will be opposite for the invert. And since you will be able to tell the difference when half of the glutamate has been replaced with glycene, before replacing the single awareness neuron, all the glycene that has been substituted for glutamate will have to be interpreted back to glutamate to be fed to the not yet replaced binding neuron that binds all the knowledge together to make one composite experience be the same. As you said, you will not be able to replace any of the glutamate, being fed to the binding system (as you will be aware of the difference), until you replace the entire binding system with something that knows how to interpret glycerine, and behave as if it was glutamate. If the binding system that enables you to experience all your diverse knowledge as one compositely experience is more complex than one neuron, describe whatever different way you will achieve the singular composite experience. With that we will be able to predict in a falsifiable way, exactly when the qualia will dance (until you correctly provide interpretation hardware that will interpret that which is not red, as if it was), and you will only be able to finally reproduce the same external behavior when the entire binding system has been substituted - resulting in a detectable (via whatever binding system you use) qualia invert. Brent On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 4:25 am, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You said: >> >> "Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I >> have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were >> made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the >> neural component you think is essential for particular qualia." >> >> I thought I have answered this many times, so thanks for letting me know >> that I'm still not communicating. Let me try to clearly answer this >> specific question: >> >> Absolutely, yes, according to a qualitative blind definition of >> "*observable behaviour*" the behaviour would be the same. That is why I >> always talk about two people behaving identically (finding and picking >> strawberries), yet they have inverted red/green qualia. Since the >> "*observable behaviour*" is qualia blind, it sees the identical behaviour >> of the two people behaving the same, but it is blind to the different >> behaviors of the inverted qualitative awareness. >> > > If changing the glutamate receptors changes red qualia to green, then > changing the receptors in half the brain should invert the qualia that half > of the brain is responsible for. So if the subject sees a field of > strawberries after the change, one half if the strawberries will look red > and the other half will look green. Yet the subject will not notice a > change, and will tell you that all the strawberries look red, just as > before. Or to change the experiment slightly, as a result of some neural > substitution all of the visual qualia disappear, but the subject doesn't > notice, continues to describe red strawberries as before, and is able to > pick the strawberries as before. Would you still insist that the qualia > have been inverted or eliminated even though the subject can notice no > internal difference and the experimenter can notice no external difference? > In what sense is a change in qualia a change if there is neither a > subjective nor objective difference? > > When you include in the system, the behaviour that is the redness >> awareness, and the detectably different behaviour that is the greenness >> awareness - the external behaviour is the same, but they are finding the >> strawberry for inverted behavioural reasons or they are finding the >> strawberry for qualitatively inverted initial causal behaviours. >> > > You talk about a "detectably different behaviour awareness" but you agreed > above that the observable behaviour is the same. > > Again, what is required is some well defined or testable way to >> qualitatively eff ineffable qualities. What makes something ineffable is >> the fact that an abstracted representation like the word red, does not have >> a redness quality. So without having some kind of way to know how to >> interpret an abstracted representation to get back to the original quality >> of the composite knowledge being observed to know the intended qualitative >> meaning of a word like red, one remains qualia blind. >> >> So, you must have some kind of minimal awareness behavioural requirements >> like including two qualitatively diverse representations of knowledge, and >> a way to bind them together to form a composite qualitative conscious >> awareness. This diverse composite qualitative awareness behaviour needs to >> be the behavioural mechanism that enables the system to answer questions >> like: "No, my qualitative knowledge of red is more like your qualitative >> knowledge of green." >> > > That would be difficult, if I can't even notice when my own qualia change > or disappear! > > There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of >> detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist >> theories. I only use glutamate, because it is the simplest and most >> straight forward to understand. I've tried to find some functional way the >> behaviour of redness knowledge could have distinguishable from greenness >> behavioural properties, but not only can I not do it, it seems impossible. >> You said: "I don't see why you should consider this 'miraculous'". To me, >> if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way to to do >> this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a functionalist >> theory, then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it >> is some kind of "miracle." In order for one to not think it is simply >> magic, someone must falsify the belief that it can't be done, by providing >> any kind of theoretically possible way to observe qualitatively diverse >> awareness behaviour in a detectable effing of the ineffable way. >> > > You've said you don't find it problematic that qualia might be associated > with a substance but you do find it problematic that they might be > associated with a process. I don't see why you would have this intuition. > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 8 21:57:11 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 13:57:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> Message-ID: <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? ?>?Freud was right about so many things, and wrong about more than that. When he was right, it was amazing? - people are hung up on his wrong ideas, such as oral, anal, Oedipal stages, etc.)? Owwww damn, are those wrong now? I really liked those theories. How long does it take for these to cycle back around? >?There is evidence that one of Freud's hangups was sex, and that he was something of a prude, all of which did not seem to influence his theories. bill w? Prude, that?s a term specific to people who are squicky about sex. We should have specific terms for those who are squicky about other human behaviors, such as recreational drugs (you know I am a prude on that.) I propose ?drude.? It even has rhyming potential. Guy makes like Mrs. Reagan, just says no. His buds: Dude! You?re such a drude! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 22:54:49 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:54:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> Message-ID: adrian wrote: updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) I ?t used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female. I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'. It also used to be that 'ladies', except in announcements in large groups "Ladies and gentlemen....", referred only to women who met certain criteria and not every woman did. I assume a woman is a lady until she proves that she is not. Ditto gentleman. Spike, it is extremely unlikely that Freud's discarded developmental theories will ever see the light of day again, except metaphorically, as in 'anal personality'. Also, his therapy, Psychoanalysis, is just about dead, along with any other (like Jung) relying on uncovering the unconscious. We will gradually uncover the unconscious but not by those means. bill w? On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:57 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > > ? > > ?>?Freud was right about so many things, and wrong about more than that. > When he was right, it was amazing? - people are hung up on his wrong > ideas, such as oral, anal, Oedipal stages, etc.)? > > > > > > Owwww damn, are those wrong now? I really liked those theories. How long > does it take for these to cycle back around? > > > > > > > > >?There is evidence that one of Freud's hangups was sex, and that he was > something of a prude, all of which did not seem to influence his theories. > bill w? > > > > Prude, that?s a term specific to people who are squicky about sex. We > should have specific terms for those who are squicky about other human > behaviors, such as recreational drugs (you know I am a prude on that.) I > propose ?drude.? It even has rhyming potential. Guy makes like Mrs. > Reagan, just says no. His buds: Dude! You?re such a drude! > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 8 23:49:35 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:49:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> Message-ID: <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] star trek adrian wrote: >>?updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) >?It used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female. I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'? Luxury! In my day, we had ?mailman? but now it?s personperson. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 00:27:16 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:27:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> Message-ID: Watch your quoting. The way you have it makes it look like I wrote the > comment rather than the >> one. ;) It should have been: >adrian wrote: On Feb 8, 2017 4:05 PM, "spike" wrote: *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace *Subject:* Re: [ExI] star trek adrian wrote: >>?updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) >?It used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female. I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'? Luxury! In my day, we had ?mailman? but now it?s personperson. 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 Feb 9 00:58:09 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 16:58:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> Message-ID: <02b201d2826f$95a365a0$c0ea30e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 4:27 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] star trek Watch your quoting. The way you have it makes it look like I wrote the > comment rather than the >> one. ;) It should have been: >adrian wrote: Oops apologies. Sometimes my brain switches from automatic to personual. I try to pay attention to the strict persondates of protocol, but I do mispersonage it at times. But I am only huperson. spike On Feb 8, 2017 4:05 PM, "spike" > wrote: From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org ] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] star trek adrian wrote: >>?updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) >?It used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female. I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'? Luxury! In my day, we had ?mailman? but now it?s personperson. 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 Feb 9 01:21:17 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:21:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> Message-ID: <02bf01d28272$d0dbbcf0$729336d0$@att.net> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] >?Oops apologies. Sometimes my brain switches from automatic to personual. I try to pay attention to the strict persondates of protocol, but I do mispersonage it at times. But I am only huperson. ?spike ?And I can assure you I had no personvolent intent. (Fearlessly he or she tickles the tail of the ferocious Extropian wordplay beast, also known as Uther Pundragon.) Grain of truth: gender inclusiveness is commendable but it has its price: it makes language clumsy. Oh dear, now I have triggered a riot up the street at that educational institution, can?t recall its name, starts with a B, they play Stanford at times and of course we stomp them flat. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 01:40:50 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:40:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: <02b201d2826f$95a365a0$c0ea30e0$@att.net> References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> <02b201d2826f$95a365a0$c0ea30e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <48F740BE-A8FD-4818-A543-5E2E83C93D1A@gmail.com> Sorry if this appears multiple times. Used the wrong account. If you look back far enough, the word "man" didn't refer to males, but to both males and females, sure. But it wasn't feminism that changed this. Over time, "man" started to refer to males exclusively and was still use to refer generically to humanity. But if you said "there were _two men_ on the boat" a century ago, almost everyone would have interpreted that as "two male adult humans" and not "two humans of indeterminate gender." Feminists didn't change this and didn't destroy anything. Times change. Some people are more attuned now that "man" seems to connote a male adult human and can be unclear in many case or give exactly the wrong meaning. And, sure, some might be swayed by PC, but every age has its views on what's appropriate and inappropriate. Sometimes a change in this is for the better, sometimes not. But out time is not unique in this respect. "Gentleman" and "lady" went through similar changes. A few centuries ago, "gentleman" didn't mean someone necessarily who had good manners or paid deference to the opposite sex. It meant a male adult of the gentry, specifically one who had some source of income that meant he would not have to work -- usually by owning land others managed and worked. The word only changed over time to have a meaning confined to manners and having nothing to do with being a member of the gentry or whether one worked. And now it's mainly used either to refer to manners or to politely/formerly refer to male adults. These social roles, too, are malleable and alter over time. It seems a wee priggish to cling to old meanings (or meanings that are new compared to even older meanings) as if these are eternal when the underlying social relations -- the very reason for the older meanings -- have changed. Regarding science fiction, there's certainly something you've said that earlier times most science fiction was pretty much very heteronormative and extremely male-centered. So it's no surprise that "Star Trek" typified this then started to make changes. (And women in the first series are dealt with pretty much as one dimensional servants, sex objects, or victims to be imperiled by male villains and rescued by male heroes -- not full people. Whether that bothers you or should bother is another discussion, but I don't see how anyone would seriously deny it.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst From: William Flynn Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] star trek adrian wrote: updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) I?t used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female. I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'. It also used to be that 'ladies', except in announcements in large groups "Ladies and gentlemen....", referred only to women who met certain criteria and not every woman did. I assume a woman is a lady until she proves that she is not. Ditto gentleman. Spike, it is extremely unlikely that Freud's discarded developmental theories will ever see the light of day again, except metaphorically, as in 'anal personality'. Also, his therapy, Psychoanalysis, is just about dead, along with any other (like Jung) relying on uncovering the unconscious. We will gradually uncover the unconscious but not by those means. bill w? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 01:27:02 2017 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 01:27:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> Message-ID: <279057969.900672.1486603622176@mail.yahoo.com> If you go back far enough, the word "man" and its cognates didn't refer to males, but to both males and females, sure. But it wasn't feminism that changed this. Over time, "man" started to refer to males exclusively and was still use to refer generically to humanity. But if you said "there were two men on the boat" a few decades ago, almost everyone would have translated that as "two male adult humans" and not "two humans of undeterminate gender." Feminists didn't change this and didn't destroy anything. Times change. Some people are more attuned now that "man" seems to connote a male adult human and can be unclear in many case or give exactly the wrong meaning. And, sure, some might be swayed by PC, but every age has its views on what's appropriate and inappropriate. Sometimes a change in this is for the better, sometimes not. But out time is not unique in this respect. "Gentleman" and "lady" went through similar changes. A few centuries ago, "gentleman" didn't mean someone necessarily who had good manners or paid deference to the opposite sex. It meant a male adult of the gentry, specifically one who had some source of income that meant he would not have to work -- usually by owning land others managed and worked. The word only changed over time to have a meaning confined to manners and having nothing to do with being a member of the gentry or whether one worked. And now it's mainly used either to refer to manners or to politely/formerly refer to male adults. These social roles, too, are malleable and alter over time. It seems a bit priggish to cling to old meanings (or meanings that are new compared to even older meanings) as if these are correct when the underlying social relations -- the very reason for the older meanings -- have changed. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/________________________________ From: William Flynn Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] star trek adrian wrote: updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) I?t used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female. I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'. It also used to be that 'ladies', except in announcements in large groups "Ladies and gentlemen....", referred only to women who met certain criteria and not every woman did. I assume a woman is a lady until she proves that she is not. Ditto gentleman. Spike, it is extremely unlikely that Freud's discarded developmental theories will ever see the light of day again, except metaphorically, as in 'anal personality'. Also, his therapy, Psychoanalysis, is just about dead, along with any other (like Jung) relying on uncovering the unconscious. We will gradually uncover the unconscious but not by those means. bill w? On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:57 PM, spike wrote: > >From:extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces@ lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace > > >? >?>?Freud was right about so many things, and wrong about more than that. When he was right, it was amazing?- people are hung up on his wrong ideas, such as oral, anal, Oedipal stages, etc.)? > > >Owwww damn, are those wrong now? I really liked those theories. How long does it take for these to cycle back around? > > > >>?There is evidence that one of Freud's hangups was sex, and that he was something of a prude, all of which did not seem to influence his theories. bill w? > >Prude, that?s a term specific to people who are squicky about sex. We should have specific terms for those who are squicky about other human behaviors, such as recreational drugs (you know I am a prude on that.) I propose ?drude.? It even has rhyming potential. Guy makes like Mrs. Reagan, just says no. His buds: Dude! You?re such a drude! > >spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Feb 9 01:32:27 2017 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 17:32:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: <02b201d2826f$95a365a0$c0ea30e0$@att.net> References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> <02b201d2826f$95a365a0$c0ea30e0$@att.net> Message-ID: If you go back far enough, the word "man" and its cognates didn't refer to males, but to both males and females, sure. But it wasn't feminism that changed this. Over time, "man" started to refer to males exclusively and was still use to refer generically to humanity. But if you said "there were two men on the boat" a few decades ago, almost everyone would have translated that as "two male adult humans" and not "two humans of indeterminate gender." Feminists didn't change this and didn't destroy anything. Times change. Some people are more attuned now that "man" seems to connote a male adult human and can be unclear in many case or give exactly the wrong meaning. And, sure, some might be swayed by PC, but every age has its views on what's appropriate and inappropriate. Sometimes a change in this is for the better, sometimes not. But out time is not unique in this respect. "Gentleman" and "lady" went through similar changes. A few centuries ago, "gentleman" didn't mean someone necessarily who had good manners or paid deference to the opposite sex. It meant a male adult of the gentry, specifically one who had some source of income that meant he would not have to work -- usually by owning land others managed and worked. The word only changed over time to have a meaning confined to manners and having nothing to do with being a member of the gentry or whether one worked. And now it's mainly used either to refer to manners or to politely/formerly refer to male adults. These social roles, too, are malleable and alter over time. It seems a wee priggish to cling to old meanings (or meanings that are new compared to even older meanings) as if these are eternal when the underlying social relations -- the very reason for the older meanings -- have changed. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst From: William Flynn Wallace To: ExI chat list Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 2:54 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] star trek adrian wrote: updated it from "no man" to "no one". (Ladies can go too.) I?t used to be that 'man' referred to humanity, male and female. I suppose the feminists have destroyed that usage, though I have not seen 'manhole' turned to 'personhole'. It also used to be that 'ladies', except in announcements in large groups "Ladies and gentlemen....", referred only to women who met certain criteria and not every woman did. I assume a woman is a lady until she proves that she is not. Ditto gentleman. Spike, it is extremely unlikely that Freud's discarded developmental theories will ever see the light of day again, except metaphorically, as in 'anal personality'. Also, his therapy, Psychoanalysis, is just about dead, along with any other (like Jung) relying on uncovering the unconscious. We will gradually uncover the unconscious but not by those means. bill w? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 02:15:11 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 20:15:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] scam Message-ID: I got a call today from a 339, I think, exchange. Normally I never answer but I looked at the number and the big caps above it that said: ILLEGAL SCAM The guy said he was from a home security firm and I told him what my phone said and he hung up. Now who put that warning there? ATT? Have any of you had this experience? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 02:18:54 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:18:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] star trek In-Reply-To: <02bf01d28272$d0dbbcf0$729336d0$@att.net> References: <014201d28231$73883380$5a989a80$@att.net> <022c01d28256$4d74e330$e85ea990$@att.net> <027501d28266$01169d20$0343d760$@att.net> <02bf01d28272$d0dbbcf0$729336d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <6A27EED0-016D-438E-B48C-871293E94618@gmail.com> On Feb 8, 2017, at 5:21 PM, spike wrote: > ?And I can assure you I had no personvolent intent. > > (Fearlessly he or she tickles the tail of the ferocious Extropian wordplay beast, also known as Uther Pundragon.) > > Grain of truth: gender inclusiveness is commendable but it has its price: it makes language clumsy. I think that's more from transitioning -- what you use now seems not clumsy, but using new terms and distinctions always starts out as clumsy. Then, over time, it becomes second nature and the older terms and usage become quaint or sound affected. > Oh dear, now I have triggered a riot up the street at that educational institution, can?t recall its name, starts with a B, they play Stanford at times and of course we stomp them flat. That's funny because, as Thaddeus Russell pointed out, smashing stuff on campus doesn't actually attack the political or financial elites. I was wondering, for instance, why these protestors, if they must smash things, aren't going after Trump's various business properties. (No, I'm not trying to give them ideas. I'd rather they actually be peaceful protestors -- even silent ones. Or in the case of Milo, that they just ignored him. He thrives on these kinds of confrontations. Heck, they've likely driven up the preorders on his upcoming book.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 02:23:34 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 18:23:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] scam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 8, 2017, at 6:15 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I got a call today from a 339, I think, exchange. Normally I never answer but I looked at the number and the big caps above it that said: > > ILLEGAL SCAM > > The guy said he was from a home security firm and I told him what my phone said and he hung up. > > Now who put that warning there? ATT? Have any of you had this experience? My policy is: If I don't know the caller, the call goes to voicemail. This avoids me having to speak to telemarketers, pollsters, or anyone I'm not interested in talking with. 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 Feb 9 03:00:47 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:00:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek Message-ID: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan ? >?That's funny because, as Thaddeus Russell pointed out, smashing stuff on campus doesn't actually attack the political or financial elites? Oh very much on the contrary sir. That entire distasteful incident was a most serious attack on the political and financial elites. Perhaps it isn?t the particular elites they intended to attack, but even that isn?t clear. It was highly effective. Agreed it didn?t harm Milo a bit; it helped him by drawing attention. I had never heard of him until I had to look up what was upsetting the rioters. I still don?t get it. The guy is a political comedian? I freely admit I don?t get the jokes. I am far too not hip. >?I was wondering, for instance, why these protestors, if they must smash things, aren't going after Trump's various business properties? Wasn?t he the one of those the arsonists were trying to help? >? Or in the case of Milo?they've likely driven up the preorders on his upcoming book.) >?Regards, Dan I confess I am most puzzled. I have heard that Milo is a fascist but also a Nazi. Those two are polar opposites, so which is he? Who (if anyone) brought in the black-masked people? Why didn?t the peaceful protestors attempt to capture one or more of them to find out? The local constabulary showed little or no interest in attempting to capture them, or even to stop them from arson and destruction of property, so we don?t know which they were, Nazi or fascist. Milo claims to be libertarian, and the rioters apparently hate him, so the mobs must be downwing? Google results are contradictory and unhelpful. But this crowd is hip, so? Help me Exi-wan Kanobi. You?re my only hope. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 9 06:23:14 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:23:14 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 8:34 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > You said: "You talk about a 'detectably different behaviour awareness' but > you agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same." But I only > said it would be the same for external behavior that can be qualia blind, > like, picking strawberries. If you include the internal behavior or the > qualitative behavior of the knowledge itself that is required when asking > questions like: "Does your knowledge of red behave like my redness, or like > my greenness?" the behavior will be opposite for the invert. > You're contradicting yourself here because you previously agreed that the *observable behaviour* will be the same. Speaking is *observable behaviour*. This is why I have been labouring the point and emphasising it with asterisks! So the subject will not only pick the strawberries, he will also say the strawberries look red exactly as they did before the substitution, even if all or half of his visual qualia associated with the strawberries have turned green, or disappeared altogether leaving him blind. And since you will be able to tell the difference when half of the > glutamate has been replaced with glycene, before replacing the single > awareness neuron, all the glycene that has been substituted for glutamate > will have to be interpreted back to glutamate to be fed to the not yet > replaced binding neuron that binds all the knowledge together to make one > composite experience be the same. As you said, you will not be able to > replace any of the glutamate, being fed to the binding system (as you will > be aware of the difference), until you replace the entire binding system > with something that knows how to interpret glycerine, and behave as if it > was glutamate. > > If the binding system that enables you to experience all your diverse > knowledge as one compositely experience is more complex than one neuron, > describe whatever different way you will achieve the singular composite > experience. With that we will be able to predict in a falsifiable way, > exactly when the qualia will dance (until you correctly provide > interpretation hardware that will interpret that which is not red, as if it > was), and you will only be able to finally reproduce the same external > behavior when the entire binding system has been substituted - resulting in > a detectable (via whatever binding system you use) qualia invert. > > Brent > > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 4:25 am, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > Hi Stathis, > > You said: > > "Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I > have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were > made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the > neural component you think is essential for particular qualia." > > I thought I have answered this many times, so thanks for letting me know > that I'm still not communicating. Let me try to clearly answer this > specific question: > > Absolutely, yes, according to a qualitative blind definition of > "*observable behaviour*" the behaviour would be the same. That is why I > always talk about two people behaving identically (finding and picking > strawberries), yet they have inverted red/green qualia. Since the > "*observable behaviour*" is qualia blind, it sees the identical behaviour > of the two people behaving the same, but it is blind to the different > behaviors of the inverted qualitative awareness. > > > If changing the glutamate receptors changes red qualia to green, then > changing the receptors in half the brain should invert the qualia that half > of the brain is responsible for. So if the subject sees a field of > strawberries after the change, one half if the strawberries will look red > and the other half will look green. Yet the subject will not notice a > change, and will tell you that all the strawberries look red, just as > before. Or to change the experiment slightly, as a result of some neural > substitution all of the visual qualia disappear, but the subject doesn't > notice, continues to describe red strawberries as before, and is able to > pick the strawberries as before. Would you still insist that the qualia > have been inverted or eliminated even though the subject can notice no > internal difference and the experimenter can notice no external difference? > In what sense is a change in qualia a change if there is neither a > subjective nor objective difference? > > When you include in the system, the behaviour that is the redness > awareness, and the detectably different behaviour that is the greenness > awareness - the external behaviour is the same, but they are finding the > strawberry for inverted behavioural reasons or they are finding the > strawberry for qualitatively inverted initial causal behaviours. > > > You talk about a "detectably different behaviour awareness" but you agreed > above that the observable behaviour is the same. > > Again, what is required is some well defined or testable way to > qualitatively eff ineffable qualities. What makes something ineffable is > the fact that an abstracted representation like the word red, does not have > a redness quality. So without having some kind of way to know how to > interpret an abstracted representation to get back to the original quality > of the composite knowledge being observed to know the intended qualitative > meaning of a word like red, one remains qualia blind. > > So, you must have some kind of minimal awareness behavioural requirements > like including two qualitatively diverse representations of knowledge, and > a way to bind them together to form a composite qualitative conscious > awareness. This diverse composite qualitative awareness behaviour needs to > be the behavioural mechanism that enables the system to answer questions > like: "No, my qualitative knowledge of red is more like your qualitative > knowledge of green." > > > That would be difficult, if I can't even notice when my own qualia change > or disappear! > > There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of > detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist > theories. I only use glutamate, because it is the simplest and most > straight forward to understand. I've tried to find some functional way the > behaviour of redness knowledge could have distinguishable from greenness > behavioural properties, but not only can I not do it, it seems impossible. > You said: "I don't see why you should consider this 'miraculous'". To me, > if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way to to do > this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a functionalist > theory, then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it > is some kind of "miracle." In order for one to not think it is simply > magic, someone must falsify the belief that it can't be done, by providing > any kind of theoretically possible way to observe qualitatively diverse > awareness behaviour in a detectable effing of the ineffable way. > > > You've said you don't find it problematic that qualia might be associated > with a substance but you do find it problematic that they might be > associated with a process. I don't see why you would have this intuition. > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > 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 col.hales at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 00:37:41 2017 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 11:37:41 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yikes. I'm currently finding it hard to attend here... up to my armpits in my cellular automata work. I'll try and be brief and attend to the comments in a general sense. It's sat morn here downunder. Time out. The big one. I can use John Clark?s remarks as a launching place?. ?Science is empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter, if the behavior of 2 things is identical then it would be impossible by definition to distinguish between them scientifically, ?? OK. Sorry John, but this is where my blood boils? Don?t take this personally. I have been watching this issue in detail for 15 years. When is the penny gonna drop? This very comment goes on and on and on and on in many different forms all over the place ?.and nothing ever shifts and the same mistake gets made over and over and over. FFS. quasi rant-time. In exactly what way does this OBSERVING happen? It happens in the subjectivity of the ?scientific observer?. The first person perspective (1PP) of the scientist. In the unique context of explaining qualia?. That first person perspective is both presupposed (the observer is being presupposed) and the explanandum! You cannot have objectivity without subjectivity. Subjectivity SUPERVENES on objectivity. What do you think you are objectifying an ?object? out of?? SUBJECTIVITY! (as contents of) That being the brutal fact of being a scientist, you are then forced to admit that subjectivity is actually _more_ ?evidenced? than anything else in the history of science and has been evidenced in every scientific observation ever made in the entire history of science. Furthermore the ?evidence? is more certain than any claim about the ?objective observation? (sorry ??) of the _contents_ of a 1PP.? Can you (the group I mean) not see this? Isn?t it obvious? ==============METAPHOR Claiming that qualia are not evidenced is EXACTLY like claiming that movies don?t evidence a movie projector. Do you ?see the movie projector? when imbued by a movie? Would you expect to? Of course not!!! Yet that projector is evidenced nonetheless! At the same time, the broken stupidity of the arguments say that the only thing that is real is the _contents_ of the picture (say X) on the movie screen! How stupid is this? The ?scientific evidence? of X provided in a movie about X is less certain than the evidence that there is a movie projector. In the case of qualia we are required to explain the existence and nature of the movie projector ? by observing the movie? Crazy crap. Why is simply realising there is a movie not evidence of a movie? And that when that projector is shut down, all evidence of X goes with it!! 100% every time. Is this really that hard to get your brain around? The projector is qualia physics and the movie is the represented contents of the qualia. ?.. the scientific evidence and the ?contents of scientific observation? part company! That?s all that happens. At the very heart of this is utter bullshit: That somewhere engraved on a cultural rock from on high, that no one is ever trained in, is not written down, examined or reviewed ? EVER ? we identify ?evidence? with ?contents of the 1PP?. This is nothing but a blindly followed ?Science is empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter?? unquestioned acculturation. Can you now see this? The group I mean. Is it really that hard? END OF METAPHOR ====================== We go on and on and on about the ?lack of observation of qualia? while demanding it be used on the pain of the science being thrown out (because OBJECTIVITY didn?t happen) when the _evidence_ of an observer (and therefore qualia) is completely missed ? is the existence of the possibility of objectivity in and of itself. What does it take to out this bizarre blockage? In the case of X = qualia there is an almost breathtaking confusion between the existence of ?scientific evidence of X? and the ?existence of X as contents of consciousness objectified out of consciousness?. What would be the ?evidence? of a scientific observer? That?s what the evidence of qualia is. Of course the qualia are not observable as ?contents of the subjectivity of the assumed observer?. But that does not mean they are not evidenced. SCIENTISTS are the scientific evidence of qulia. Brutally reinforced with every observation ever made. Not only that, it?s scientifically testable! The evidence is ?laws of the appearances of nature by a presupposed observer utterly dependent on subjectivity for observation?. Take the subjectivity away? NO SCIENCE. Scientists have to be evidence of something? Don?t we? FFS why are we NOT evidence of qualia? Do we operate by magic? Must we have a sacred line drawn around ourselves? So infuriating! Do I really have to say this again? Isn?t it bloody obvious? Is there something wrong with me? Why do I even have to say this? The explanandum we seek is NOT OBSERVABLE but it is DEFINITELY EVIDENCED. OK. Repeating repeating over and over. Enough. ?? The real problem is the total lack of the self-governance of scientific behaviour. ===================== On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 8:34 am, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You said: "You talk about a 'detectably different behaviour awareness' >> but you agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same." But I >> only said it would be the same for external behavior that can be qualia >> blind, like, picking strawberries. If you include the internal behavior or >> the qualitative behavior of the knowledge itself that is required when >> asking questions like: "Does your knowledge of red behave like my redness, >> or like my greenness?" the behavior will be opposite for the invert. >> > > You're contradicting yourself here because you previously agreed that the > *observable behaviour* will be the same. Speaking is *observable > behaviour*. This is why I have been labouring the point and emphasising it > with asterisks! So the subject will not only pick the strawberries, he will > also say the strawberries look red exactly as they did before the > substitution, even if all or half of his visual qualia associated with the > strawberries have turned green, or disappeared altogether leaving him blind. > > And since you will be able to tell the difference when half of the >> glutamate has been replaced with glycene, before replacing the single >> awareness neuron, all the glycene that has been substituted for glutamate >> will have to be interpreted back to glutamate to be fed to the not yet >> replaced binding neuron that binds all the knowledge together to make one >> composite experience be the same. As you said, you will not be able to >> replace any of the glutamate, being fed to the binding system (as you will >> be aware of the difference), until you replace the entire binding system >> with something that knows how to interpret glycerine, and behave as if it >> was glutamate. >> >> If the binding system that enables you to experience all your diverse >> knowledge as one compositely experience is more complex than one neuron, >> describe whatever different way you will achieve the singular composite >> experience. With that we will be able to predict in a falsifiable way, >> exactly when the qualia will dance (until you correctly provide >> interpretation hardware that will interpret that which is not red, as if it >> was), and you will only be able to finally reproduce the same external >> behavior when the entire binding system has been substituted - resulting in >> a detectable (via whatever binding system you use) qualia invert. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 4:25 am, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You said: >> >> "Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I >> have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were >> made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the >> neural component you think is essential for particular qualia." >> >> I thought I have answered this many times, so thanks for letting me know >> that I'm still not communicating. Let me try to clearly answer this >> specific question: >> >> Absolutely, yes, according to a qualitative blind definition of >> "*observable behaviour*" the behaviour would be the same. That is why I >> always talk about two people behaving identically (finding and picking >> strawberries), yet they have inverted red/green qualia. Since the >> "*observable behaviour*" is qualia blind, it sees the identical behaviour >> of the two people behaving the same, but it is blind to the different >> behaviors of the inverted qualitative awareness. >> >> >> If changing the glutamate receptors changes red qualia to green, then >> changing the receptors in half the brain should invert the qualia that half >> of the brain is responsible for. So if the subject sees a field of >> strawberries after the change, one half if the strawberries will look red >> and the other half will look green. Yet the subject will not notice a >> change, and will tell you that all the strawberries look red, just as >> before. Or to change the experiment slightly, as a result of some neural >> substitution all of the visual qualia disappear, but the subject doesn't >> notice, continues to describe red strawberries as before, and is able to >> pick the strawberries as before. Would you still insist that the qualia >> have been inverted or eliminated even though the subject can notice no >> internal difference and the experimenter can notice no external difference? >> In what sense is a change in qualia a change if there is neither a >> subjective nor objective difference? >> >> When you include in the system, the behaviour that is the redness >> awareness, and the detectably different behaviour that is the greenness >> awareness - the external behaviour is the same, but they are finding the >> strawberry for inverted behavioural reasons or they are finding the >> strawberry for qualitatively inverted initial causal behaviours. >> >> >> You talk about a "detectably different behaviour awareness" but you >> agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same. >> >> Again, what is required is some well defined or testable way to >> qualitatively eff ineffable qualities. What makes something ineffable is >> the fact that an abstracted representation like the word red, does not have >> a redness quality. So without having some kind of way to know how to >> interpret an abstracted representation to get back to the original quality >> of the composite knowledge being observed to know the intended qualitative >> meaning of a word like red, one remains qualia blind. >> >> So, you must have some kind of minimal awareness behavioural requirements >> like including two qualitatively diverse representations of knowledge, and >> a way to bind them together to form a composite qualitative conscious >> awareness. This diverse composite qualitative awareness behaviour needs to >> be the behavioural mechanism that enables the system to answer questions >> like: "No, my qualitative knowledge of red is more like your qualitative >> knowledge of green." >> >> >> That would be difficult, if I can't even notice when my own qualia change >> or disappear! >> >> There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of >> detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist >> theories. I only use glutamate, because it is the simplest and most >> straight forward to understand. I've tried to find some functional way the >> behaviour of redness knowledge could have distinguishable from greenness >> behavioural properties, but not only can I not do it, it seems impossible. >> You said: "I don't see why you should consider this 'miraculous'". To me, >> if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way to to do >> this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a functionalist >> theory, then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it >> is some kind of "miracle." In order for one to not think it is simply >> magic, someone must falsify the belief that it can't be done, by providing >> any kind of theoretically possible way to observe qualitatively diverse >> awareness behaviour in a detectable effing of the ineffable way. >> >> >> You've said you don't find it problematic that qualia might be associated >> with a substance but you do find it problematic that they might be >> associated with a process. I don't see why you would have this intuition. >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 02:33:55 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 13:33:55 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 11 February 2017 at 11:37, Colin Hales wrote: > Yikes. I'm currently finding it hard to attend here... up to my armpits in > my cellular automata work. I'll try and be brief and attend to the comments > in a general sense. It's sat morn here downunder. Time out. > > The big one. > > I can use John Clark?s remarks as a launching place?. > > > > ?Science is empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter, > if the behavior of 2 things is identical then it would be impossible by > definition to distinguish between them scientifically, ?? > > > > OK. Sorry John, but this is where my blood boils? Don?t take this > personally. I have been watching this issue in detail for 15 years. When is > the penny gonna drop? This very comment goes on and on and on and on in > many different forms all over the place ?.and nothing ever shifts and the > same mistake gets made over and over and over. FFS. > > > > quasi rant-time. > > > > In exactly what way does this OBSERVING happen? It happens in the > subjectivity of the ?scientific observer?. The first person perspective > (1PP) of the scientist. In the unique context of explaining qualia?. That > first person perspective is both presupposed (the observer is being > presupposed) and the explanandum! > > > > You cannot have objectivity without subjectivity. Subjectivity SUPERVENES > on objectivity. What do you think you are objectifying an ?object? out of?? > SUBJECTIVITY! (as contents of) > > > > That being the brutal fact of being a scientist, you are then forced to > admit that subjectivity is actually _more_ ?evidenced? than anything else > in the history of science and has been evidenced in every scientific > observation ever made in the entire history of science. Furthermore the > ?evidence? is more certain than any claim about the ?objective observation? > (sorry ??) of the _contents_ of a 1PP.? > > > > Can you (the group I mean) not see this? Isn?t it obvious? > > > > ==============METAPHOR > > Claiming that qualia are not evidenced is EXACTLY like claiming that > movies don?t evidence a movie projector. Do you ?see the movie projector? > when imbued by a movie? Would you expect to? Of course not!!! Yet that > projector is evidenced nonetheless! > > > > At the same time, the broken stupidity of the arguments say that the only > thing that is real is the _contents_ of the picture (say X) on the movie > screen! How stupid is this? The ?scientific evidence? of X provided in a > movie about X is less certain than the evidence that there is a movie > projector. In the case of qualia we are required to explain the existence > and nature of the movie projector ? by observing the movie? Crazy crap. Why > is simply realising there is a movie not evidence of a movie? And that when > that projector is shut down, all evidence of X goes with it!! 100% every > time. Is this really that hard to get your brain around? > > > > The projector is qualia physics and the movie is the represented contents > of the qualia. ?.. the scientific evidence and the ?contents of scientific > observation? part company! That?s all that happens. > > > > At the very heart of this is utter bullshit: That somewhere engraved on a > cultural rock from on high, that no one is ever trained in, is not written > down, examined or reviewed ? EVER ? we identify ?evidence? with ?contents > of the 1PP?. This is nothing but a blindly followed ?Science is > empirical, it's about observing behavior of people and matter?? > unquestioned acculturation. > > > > Can you now see this? The group I mean. Is it really that hard? > > > > END OF METAPHOR ====================== > > > > We go on and on and on about the ?lack of observation of qualia? while > demanding it be used on the pain of the science being thrown out (because > OBJECTIVITY didn?t happen) when the _evidence_ of an observer (and > therefore qualia) is completely missed ? is the existence of the > possibility of objectivity in and of itself. > > > > What does it take to out this bizarre blockage? > > > > In the case of X = qualia there is an almost breathtaking confusion > between the existence of ?scientific evidence of X? and the ?existence of X > as contents of consciousness objectified out of consciousness?. > > > > What would be the ?evidence? of a scientific observer? That?s what the > evidence of qualia is. Of course the qualia are not observable as ?contents > of the subjectivity of the assumed observer?. > > > > But that does not mean they are not evidenced. SCIENTISTS are the > scientific evidence of qulia. Brutally reinforced with every observation > ever made. Not only that, it?s scientifically testable! The evidence is > ?laws of the appearances of nature by a presupposed observer utterly > dependent on subjectivity for observation?. Take the subjectivity away? NO > SCIENCE. > > > > Scientists have to be evidence of something? Don?t we? FFS why are we NOT > evidence of qualia? Do we operate by magic? Must we have a sacred line > drawn around ourselves? > > > > So infuriating! Do I really have to say this again? Isn?t it bloody > obvious? Is there something wrong with me? Why do I even have to say this? > > > > The explanandum we seek is NOT OBSERVABLE but it is DEFINITELY EVIDENCED. > While it is immediately "obvious" that you need qualia to do science, with some further reflection you should be able to see that is possible that the scientists have no qualia - that they are philosophical zombies. It then requires further argument to show that they are not philosophical zombies. It is not "obvious". -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 13:50:54 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:50:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> References: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, spike wrote: > > > > Help me Exi-wan Kanobi. You?re my only hope. > > > ### I distinctly remember being called a Nazi a few times on this list, years ago. Being me does not feel like being Nazi from my subjective perspective but then, how could I know? Perhaps my esteemed adversaries, having an outside-view of me, were privy to knowledge not available to me? It is only reasonable to accept the consensus, so after some time of soul-searching I came to accept that I am a closet-Nazi, indeed, even if my arm does not automatically jump up in the Hitlergru? when listening to jaunty marching music, and my levels of anti-Semitism are woefully deficient. Therefore I was quite intrigued to hear of a possible fellow-traveler, this Mr Yiannopoulos, who apparently manages to be a fearsome Nazi while also being gay, Jewish and very pretty. I greatly enjoyed watching him ruthlessly skewer some of our traditional Nazi victims, such as third-wave feminists, intersectional victimhood activists and free-trade opponents, and all that using words rather than the bayonet. Mr Yiannopoulos pricks our enemies with a ridiculously fagged-up demeanor, making their feeble squirmings all the more amusing to my old Nazi heart. Thus emboldened, I would like to make my coming out of closet announcement on our dear list, where my Naziness was first noticed. Let's unite, Nazi brothers and sisters of all breeds and creeds, sing kumbaya and make the black-masked Antifa thugs quake in their jack-boots! Today the list, tomorrow the whole world! Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 16:04:18 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:04:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The myth of the boiling point Message-ID: http://www.sites.hps.cam.ac.uk/boiling/ Forgot if I sent this already. Anyhow, nest little bit of history I was unaware of until I read this piece. I'd like to read Chang's book as well. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 11 16:33:03 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 08:33:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: References: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <014e01d28484$84c61810$8e524830$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki ### >?brothers and sisters of all breeds and creeds, sing kumbaya and make the black-masked Antifa thugs quake in their jack-boots! Today the list, tomorrow the whole world! Rafa? I have been working on an idea for how to capture the neo-KKK black-masked rioters. I don?t think that turned out the way the students were hoping, for I know that Berkeley is the place for elite students who generally favor free speech, or did at one time. I have a hard time imagining top-shelf students doing the things I saw the neo-Klan doing. But there were the peaceful marchers standing dumbly behind a black banner of ?America was never great? while the masked ones assaulted constables and set fires, all to stop a comedian from speaking. I really don?t think the students wanted that. However none of the arsonists were apprehended as far as I know, so we still don?t know who they are. Quad-rotor drones can be flown via Skype, giving a drone?s-eye view. A drone could easily carry a payload of a CO2 cartridge, with a short barrel single shot paintball gun. Black-masks riot, constables fly a drone, spot some sleazy bastard hurling Molotov cocktails, zoom in, pop her with a paintball filled with phosphor compounds mixed in something colorless such as glycerin, in such a way as to uniquely identify each particular paintball. Constables with UV lamp arrest anyone who glows as they attempt to escape, they figure out which of the anonymous rioters this is and what she did, looks for her FaceBook pages. Now we know. Wouldn?t that work? If they were outsiders, they would likely need to drive away after the riot, so the constables could set up shop in the parking lots and run their invisible UV detectors. What do you bet the neo-Klan were not Berkeley students? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 17:00:35 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:00:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Colin Hales wrote: > ?> ? > In exactly what way does this OBSERVING happen? It happens in the > subjectivity of the ?scientific observer?. > ? If you want to get technical it does NOT happen in the ? subjectivity of ? ? just any old ? scientific observer, it happens in the subjectivity of John K Clark and of absolutely nobody else. However nobody ?can? ? function if they really believed in solipsism therefore everybody this side of a looney bin has a axiom of existence that says if something behaves in ways similar to me then they have subjective experiences similar to me. I have observed other things behave intelligently so I use the aforesaid axium to conclude that I am not the only conscious thing in the universe. > ?> ? > Claiming that qualia are not evidenced is > ?[...]? > > ?I don't claim that, my qualia is certainly? ?evidence, ?and if the above axiom is used your qualia is evidence of stuff too. What I do claim is that qualia theories of the sort you find in abundance on the internet are doomed to failure because they don't even try to explain how intelligence works. Dreaming up pure qualia theories is the easiest thing in the world because there is no way to disprove any of them, but coming up with theories that explain intelligent behavior is hard, very very hard. > ?> ? > What would be the ?evidence? of a scientific observer? > > ?Repeatability. I can observe your behavior but I can't observe your qualia, however I don't need to, if I do what you did and I get the same result you did then I will conclude that what you claim to have found is probably true. ?> ? > The real problem is the total lack of the self-governance of scientific > behaviour. > > ?I don't know what that means, I don't even think the scientific community has a real problem, although the current political community certainly does. The subjective world of the most powerful man on Earth has 5 million voters in it that nobody else can see, what happens if tomorrow this same man's subjective world includes 5 million Chinese soldiers invading Idaho? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 17:41:56 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:41:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> References: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > I have heard that Milo is a fascist but also a Nazi. Those two are polar > opposites, so which is he? Polar ? ? opposites? I think Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany were more alike than unlike. Stalin's USSR was more dissimilar ?but even here calling Nazis and Communists polar opposite ?s? would be going ?a bit ? too far. ?John K Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 11 17:53:56 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 09:53:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: References: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <019201d2848f$d19fb460$74df1d20$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 9:42 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:00 PM, spike > wrote: ?> ? I have heard that Milo is a fascist but also a Nazi. Those two are polar opposites, so which is he? Polar opposites? I think Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany were more alike than unlike. Stalin's USSR was more dissimilar ?but even here calling Nazis and Communists polar opposite ?s? would be going ?a bit ? too far. ?John K Clark ? Ja, from our point of view the Nazis and fascists appear similar, but it depends on how you measure it. Communism, Nazism and Fascism all have something important in common: down-wing. They all take rights from the individual citizens and fail to honor the individual?s property rights (among other rights) whereas capitalism is inherently upwing and unfettered capitalism is way up there. In WW2, the Nazis and fascists worked together temporarily, even though they would have transitioned smoothly into WW3 had they prevailed against the communists and the allies. In that same struggle, the capitalists and communists worked together in common cause temporarily and out of necessity, even though those two are as inherently incompatible as the Nazis and fascists. Afterwards, we did what the Axis power would have done had they been victorious: transitioned smoothly into world war 3. Fortunately for all, that one never went nuclear, but it almost did. Had the Axis won, I have little doubt the Nazis would have used nukes on the fascists by now. Their governmental belief systems are as incompatible as capitalism and communism. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From csaucier at sovacs.com Sat Feb 11 17:29:10 2017 From: csaucier at sovacs.com (Christian Saucier) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:29:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: <014e01d28484$84c61810$8e524830$@att.net> References: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> <014e01d28484$84c61810$8e524830$@att.net> Message-ID: On 2/11/2017 11:33 AM, spike wrote: > > > > Quad-rotor drones can be flown via Skype, giving a drone?s-eye view. > A drone could easily carry a payload of a CO2 cartridge, with a short > barrel single shot paintball gun. Black-masks riot, constables fly a > drone, spot some sleazy bastard hurling Molotov cocktails, zoom in, > pop her with a paintball filled with phosphor compounds mixed in > something colorless such as glycerin, in such a way as to uniquely > identify each particular paintball. Constables with UV lamp arrest > anyone who glows as they attempt to escape, they figure out which of > the anonymous rioters this is and what she did, looks for her FaceBook > pages. Now we know. Wouldn?t that work? > We are, of course, making the assumption that the police force didn't hire the sleazy bastards in the first place, with orders to help turn a peaceful assembly into a violent riot. Cui bono. C. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 18:34:10 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 12:34:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: References: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> <014e01d28484$84c61810$8e524830$@att.net> Message-ID: spike wrote: even though those two are as inherently incompatible as the Nazis and fascists. ------------ I suggest that all of you contributing to this thread read the fascism entry in Wikipedia. bill w On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Christian Saucier wrote: > On 2/11/2017 11:33 AM, spike wrote: > > > > Quad-rotor drones can be flown via Skype, giving a drone?s-eye view. A > drone could easily carry a payload of a CO2 cartridge, with a short barrel > single shot paintball gun. Black-masks riot, constables fly a drone, spot > some sleazy bastard hurling Molotov cocktails, zoom in, pop her with a > paintball filled with phosphor compounds mixed in something colorless such > as glycerin, in such a way as to uniquely identify each particular > paintball. Constables with UV lamp arrest anyone who glows as they attempt > to escape, they figure out which of the anonymous rioters this is and what > she did, looks for her FaceBook pages. Now we know. Wouldn?t that work? > > > We are, of course, making the assumption that the police force didn't hire > the sleazy bastards in the first place, with orders to help turn a peaceful > assembly into a violent riot. Cui bono. > > C. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 11 18:35:33 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:35:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek Message-ID: <01f401d28495$a18d47f0$e4a7d7d0$@att.net> >. Behalf Of Christian Saucier Subject: Re: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek On 2/11/2017 11:33 AM, spike wrote: >>.Quad-rotor drones.they figure out which of the anonymous rioters this is and what she did, looks for her FaceBook pages. Now we know. Wouldn't that work? >.We are, of course, making the assumption that the police force didn't hire the sleazy bastards in the first place, with orders to help turn a peaceful assembly into a violent riot. Cui bono. C. I am not making that assumption at all, but good, that would be even better. Scenario: the students apprehend one of the neo-Klan, remove mask, take lots of photos, post them on FaceBook where she is identified by the collective, hand her over to the constables, watch what happens. If she goes free, we know who the real perps are. If she doesn't, we know who she is. We could set up betting on PredictIt, have a great time with this. My bet depends on the price structure. I would like to play it however. I would give about 30 cents the first neo-Klan is ideologically driven (not a hired hand) perhaps 20 cents she is hired by the constables to discredit peaceful demonstrators, 20 cents she is a Milo-employee, 20 cents she was hired by someone neither Milo nor constables and ten cents none of the above. We could have another meme regarding the next campus Milo show: more masked thugs with no arrests of any of them. I would have to give about 50 cents for that one. We could even set up a play-money gentleperson's bet on this one. Above are my offers. Everybody gets an imaginary dollar for each of two memes, the first meme: the identity and motive of a captured black-mask, the second being no-arrest. For adjudicator, we could get a neutral-ish sort of guy who we have known for a long time, such as Adrian, or one who has a lot of experience with campuses such as BillW, or even a British guy with no dog in the fight such as BillK. Or hell, all three, an omnipotent triumvirate, who would debate and issue an opinion of who wins our imaginary dollar bet. Welcome Christian! Tell us about Christian if you wish. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 19:19:00 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 19:19:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: References: <033a01d28280$b71dbd50$255937f0$@att.net> <014e01d28484$84c61810$8e524830$@att.net> Message-ID: On 11 February 2017 at 17:29, Christian Saucier wrote: > We are, of course, making the assumption that the police force didn't hire > the sleazy bastards in the first place, with orders to help turn a peaceful > assembly into a violent riot. Cui bono. > I doubt that. No need to. The small group of Antifas (100 to 200) would have been expected to turn up and cause violent trouble. The lack of preparation by UC administration and no arrests indicate that they secretly supported the rioting (while officially opposing the violence and regretfully having to cancel the Milo speech). Remember this is Berkeley in California, both of whom strongly opposed Trump and are still despairing over the lost election.The skinhead antifas are useful idiots for the political Trump opposition. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 22:34:45 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 22:34:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] One cubic millimeter computer announced Message-ID: Micromote now one cubic millimeter computer with a megabyte of flash memory using a few nanowatts of power February 11, 2017 Quote: In 2017, a michigen Micromote computer is one cubic millimeter, which is about the size of a large grain of sand. There are several types and are a line of the world?s smallest computers. They have one megabyte of flash memory. Their broader goal is to make smarter, smaller sensors for medical devices and the internet of things?sensors that can do more with less energy. Another micro mote they presented at the ISSCC incorporates a deep-learning processor that can operate a neural network while using just 288 microwatts. Neural networks are artificial intelligence algorithms that perform well at tasks such as face and voice recognition. They typically demand both large memory banks and intense processing power, and so they?re usually run on banks of servers often powered by advanced GPUs. The Michigan Micro Mote contains solar cells that power the battery with ambient light, including indoor rooms with no natural sunlight, allowing the computers to run perpetually. This line of ?smart dust? devices includes computers equipped with imagers (with motion detection), temperature sensors, and pressure sensors. They are the culmination of work initiated by Blaauw and Sylvester on very low-power processing for millimeter-scale systems. Video - 1 min. BillK From dsunley at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 01:28:28 2017 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 18:28:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] One cubic millimeter computer announced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh crap. Read "A Deepness in the Sky". This sort of computer enables all sorts of fun abuses we as a society are not ready to deal with yet. :) On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 3:34 PM, BillK wrote: > Micromote now one cubic millimeter computer with a megabyte of flash > memory using a few nanowatts of power > February 11, 2017 > > cubic-millimeter.html> > > Quote: > In 2017, a michigen Micromote computer is one cubic millimeter, which > is about the size of a large grain of sand. There are several types > and are a line of the world?s smallest computers. They have one > megabyte of flash memory. Their broader goal is to make smarter, > smaller sensors for medical devices and the internet of things?sensors > that can do more with less energy. > > Another micro mote they presented at the ISSCC incorporates a > deep-learning processor that can operate a neural network while using > just 288 microwatts. Neural networks are artificial intelligence > algorithms that perform well at tasks such as face and voice > recognition. They typically demand both large memory banks and intense > processing power, and so they?re usually run on banks of servers often > powered by advanced GPUs. > > The Michigan Micro Mote contains solar cells that power the battery > with ambient light, including indoor rooms with no natural sunlight, > allowing the computers to run perpetually. > > This line of ?smart dust? devices includes computers equipped with > imagers (with motion detection), temperature sensors, and pressure > sensors. They are the culmination of work initiated by Blaauw and > Sylvester on very low-power processing for millimeter-scale systems. > > Video - 1 min. > > > > 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 12:14:25 2017 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:14:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] huxley etc. postscript GOV In-Reply-To: References: <010201d27ff0$8e649240$ab2db6c0$@att.net> <015801d27ff7$2660bf50$73223df0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 6:18 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > ?I can think of thousands of down sides to the Repubs getting their way > for the next four years. Deregulate everything for a start; ignore the > climate, environment, set Wall St. loose to screw up again? > ### What an enormous chasm yawns between us. My dearest hopes are your most horrible fears. What a world, what a world. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilia.stambler at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 13:10:26 2017 From: ilia.stambler at gmail.com (Ilia Stambler) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 15:10:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] New book: Anti-aging Drugs: From Basic Research to Clinical Practice - by Royal Society of Chemistry Message-ID: Dear friends, I thought you might find of interest the new book that has just been published entitled: *?Anti-aging Drugs: From Basic Research to Clinical Practice?* by the Royal Society of Chemistry, including the chapters on ?Anti-Aging Drugs: Where are We and Where are We Going?? by Alexander Vaiserman (the book editor), ?Antidiabetic Biguanides as Anti-Aging Drugs? by Vladimir Anisimov, ?Hormetins as Drugs for Healthy Aging? by Suresh Rattan, ?Lifespan-Extending Effect of Resveratrol and Other Phytochemicals? by Kyung-Jin Min, ?Human life extension: opportunities, challenges, and implications for public health policy? by Ilia Stambler, and others, with a foreword by Aubrey de Grey. It is available at: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/ebook/978-1-78262-435-6#!divbookcontent Google books I also use this opportunity to draw your attention to an additional new article on life-extension and public health policy: Ilia Stambler. Recognizing Degenerative Aging as a Treatable Medical Condition: Methodology and Policy. *Aging and Disease*, 8 (5), 2017. doi: 10.14336/AD.2017.0130 (free and open access) http://www.aginganddisease.org/article/0000/2152-5250/147600 PDF and HTML The article and the chapter argue for the urgent need to develop evidence-based diagnostic and therapy efficacy and safety criteria for degenerative aging processes. Hopefully it will increase interest and discussion of such criteria. Thanks for sharing and spreading the word about it in your circles. Will be grateful for any additional suggestions for how this critical issue of support for diagnostic and therapeutic research of aging can be further promoted and discussed. Thankfully yours, Ilia Stambler, PhD Outreach coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD) www.isoad.org Coordinator. Longevity for All http://www.longevityforall.org/ -- Ilia Stambler, PhD Outreach Coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease - ISOAD http://isoad.org Chair. Israeli Longevity Alliance / International Longevity Alliance (Israel) - ILA *http://www.longevityisrael.org/ * Coordinator. Longevity for All http://www.longevityforall.org Author. Longevity History. *A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century* http://longevityhistory.com Email: ilia.stambler at gmail.com Tel: 972-3-961-4296 / 0522-283-578 Rishon Lezion. Israel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From csaucier at sovacs.com Sun Feb 12 12:45:37 2017 From: csaucier at sovacs.com (Christian Saucier) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 07:45:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: <01f401d28495$a18d47f0$e4a7d7d0$@att.net> References: <01f401d28495$a18d47f0$e4a7d7d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 2/11/2017 1:35 PM, spike wrote: > We could set up betting on PredictIt, have a great time with this. My > bet depends on the price structure. I would like to play it however. > I would give about 30 cents the first neo-Klan is ideologically driven > (not a hired hand) perhaps 20 cents she is hired by the constables to > discredit peaceful demonstrators, 20 cents she is a Milo-employee, 20 > cents she was hired by someone neither Milo nor constables and ten > cents none of the above. Milo Y. clearly also benefits from all the publicity generated by the riots. I like your percentage allocation although I would personally reallocate 10 points from the "neither" to the "ideological" category. What I should have said is that regardless of who actually funds Antifas and other "by any means necessary" groups, the events so far indicate to me that local police forces do not seem to have any desire or intention of arresting the troublemakers. C. On 2/11/2017 1:35 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > *>? Behalf Of *Christian Saucier > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek > > > > On 2/11/2017 11:33 AM, spike wrote: > > > > >>?Quad-rotor drones?they figure out which of the anonymous rioters this is and > what she did, looks for her FaceBook pages. Now we know. Wouldn?t > that work? > > > >?We are, of course, making the assumption that the police force > didn't hire the sleazy bastards in the first place, with orders to > help turn a peaceful assembly into a violent riot. Cui bono. C. > > > > > > I am not making that assumption at all, but good, that would be even > better. > > > > Scenario: the students apprehend one of the neo-Klan, remove mask, > take lots of photos, post them on FaceBook where she is identified by > the collective, hand her over to the constables, watch what happens. > If she goes free, we know who the real perps are. If she doesn?t, we > know who she is. > > > > We could set up betting on PredictIt, have a great time with this. My > bet depends on the price structure. I would like to play it however. > I would give about 30 cents the first neo-Klan is ideologically driven > (not a hired hand) perhaps 20 cents she is hired by the constables to > discredit peaceful demonstrators, 20 cents she is a Milo-employee, 20 > cents she was hired by someone neither Milo nor constables and ten > cents none of the above. > > > > We could have another meme regarding the next campus Milo show: more > masked thugs with no arrests of any of them. I would have to give > about 50 cents for that one. > > > > We could even set up a play-money gentleperson?s bet on this one. > Above are my offers. Everybody gets an imaginary dollar for each of > two memes, the first meme: the identity and motive of a captured > black-mask, the second being no-arrest. For adjudicator, we could get > a neutral-ish sort of guy who we have known for a long time, such as > Adrian, or one who has a lot of experience with campuses such as > BillW, or even a British guy with no dog in the fight such as BillK. > Or hell, all three, an omnipotent triumvirate, who would debate and > issue an opinion of who wins our imaginary dollar bet. > > > > Welcome Christian! Tell us about Christian if you wish. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From csaucier at sovacs.com Sun Feb 12 16:51:15 2017 From: csaucier at sovacs.com (Christian Saucier) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 11:51:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Introductions Message-ID: Hello Extropians - As suggested by Spike yesterday, I'm taking a few minutes to introduce myself to the list. I've been lurking on ExI for many years, although despite my wishes, my schedule hasn't allowed me much personal time to participate in online forums and mailing lists. You can find pretty much anything public about me on either https://keybase.io/csaucier or https://www.linkedin.com/in/csaucier I'm currently working on two main projects: - https://www.ripe.io - we use blockchain technology to improve the local food supply-chains and give consumers more information about the food we eat. - https://www.equibit.org - full-featured distributed alternative platform to issue and manage corporate equity; our relationship with existing markets like Nasdaq and NYSE is similar to the relationship between bitcoin and Bank of America. :) My interest in Extropy, H+, and expanded lifespans dates back to the early 2000s. I have always been an avid sci-fi, technology, and science reader. Back in 2000, a good friend of mine (host of the extropy.org domain) introduced me to the exciting possibilities brought about by exponential technology growth. Since then, my outlook on life has never been the same. Most of my passions revolve around 3 main attractors: - Voluntaryism - Evolving societies without the need for coercive governance - Blockchain Technology - Creating P2P alternatives to more easily corruptible centralized systems - Extropy & the Singularity - Preparing for a future of expanded lifespan, improved awareness, fun, and amazing discoveries I'll be attending the Anarchapulco 2017 conference at the end of February (https://anarchapulco.com/). I'd love to arrange a get-together with anyone from ExI who might also be attending! Cheers! Christian. From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 17:05:42 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:05:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Introductions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DD20D09-0FA1-46CC-892E-11358A76D063@gmail.com> On Feb 12, 2017, at 8:51 AM, Christian Saucier wrote: > Hello Extropians - > > As suggested by Spike yesterday, I'm taking a few minutes to introduce > myself to the list. I've been lurking on ExI for many years, although > despite my wishes, my schedule hasn't allowed me much personal time to > participate in online forums and mailing lists. > > You can find pretty much anything public about me on either > https://keybase.io/csaucier or https://www.linkedin.com/in/csaucier > > I'm currently working on two main projects: > - https://www.ripe.io - we use blockchain technology to improve the > local food supply-chains and give consumers more information about the > food we eat. > - https://www.equibit.org - full-featured distributed alternative > platform to issue and manage corporate equity; our relationship with > existing markets like Nasdaq and NYSE is similar to the relationship > between bitcoin and Bank of America. :) > > My interest in Extropy, H+, and expanded lifespans dates back to the > early 2000s. I have always been an avid sci-fi, technology, and science > reader. Back in 2000, a good friend of mine (host of the extropy.org > domain) introduced me to the exciting possibilities brought about by > exponential technology growth. Since then, my outlook on life has never > been the same. > > Most of my passions revolve around 3 main attractors: > - Voluntaryism - Evolving societies without the need for coercive > governance > - Blockchain Technology - Creating P2P alternatives to more easily > corruptible centralized systems > - Extropy & the Singularity - Preparing for a future of expanded > lifespan, improved awareness, fun, and amazing discoveries > > I'll be attending the Anarchapulco 2017 conference at the end of > February (https://anarchapulco.com/). I'd love to arrange a > get-together with anyone from ExI who might also be attending! Welcome aboard! Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 12 16:52:28 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 08:52:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek Message-ID: <041401d28550$65d80720$31881560$@att.net> >. Behalf Of Christian Saucier Subject: Re: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek >.Milo Y. clearly also benefits from all the publicity generated by the riots. I like your percentage allocation although I would personally reallocate 10 points from the "neither" to the "ideological" category. Ja, he's the only author I know whose own fan club claims to hate him. >.What I should have said is that regardless of who actually funds Antifas and other "by any means necessary" groups, the events so far indicate to me that local police forces do not seem to have any desire or intention of arresting the troublemakers. C. This is what makes it so cool to live in the internet age. The students standing back there like cowering sheep could grab one or more of the masked aronists, get the cell phone cameras rolling, take off the mask, post to FaceBook, have the masses identify her, see if she has a FaceBook page. Until that happens and the real bad guys are identified, Milo will sell mountains of books, YouTube will get reels of video of the kind that gets lots of hits and sells lots of ads, students at Berkeley (of all places) will appear to reject free speech. They grab one, unmask her, figure out she is a Breitbart minion, BUSTED! Hand her over to the constables and see what happens. If nothing, BUSTED! Students? Free speech advocates? Are you ready? Make us proud. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 17:13:09 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 12:13:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Raymond Smullyan Message-ID: I was sorry to hear that the great logician Raymond Smullyan died on February 6 at the age of 97. I ?first ? read ?"? The tao is silent ?" many years ago and it is still one of my favorite books. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 12 17:08:55 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:08:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Introductions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <042301d28552$b2369620$16a3c260$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Christian Saucier >...You can find pretty much anything public about me on either https://keybase.io/csaucier or https://www.linkedin.com/in/csaucier >...I'm currently working on two main projects: - https://www.ripe.io - we use blockchain technology to improve the local food supply-chains and give consumers more information about the food we eat. - https://www.equibit.org - full-featured distributed alternative platform to issue and manage corporate equity; our relationship with existing markets like Nasdaq and NYSE is similar to the relationship between bitcoin and Bank of America. :) Welcome Christian! WOWsers, you sound like one of us. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 12 17:23:12 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:23:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] b riots: was RE: star trek In-Reply-To: <041401d28550$65d80720$31881560$@att.net> References: <041401d28550$65d80720$31881560$@att.net> Message-ID: <044101d28554$b0bdc6e0$123954a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike >>.What I should have said is that regardless of who actually funds Antifas and other "by any means necessary" groups, the events so far indicate to me that local police forces do not seem to have any desire or intention of arresting the troublemakers. C. >.This is what makes it so cool to live in the internet age. The students standing back there like cowering sheep could grab one or more of the masked aronists, get the cell phone cameras rolling, take off the mask, post to FaceBook, have the masses identify her, see if she has a FaceBook page. .spike I have a fun idea. We are hearing so much about fake news and how YouTube can create an alternate reality and so forth. The video of the riots at that university up there, the ones Stanford beats which starts with a B, could be used to make a terrific fake news story. Even if we put a commentary up front in the video explaining it is a gag, an Orson Wells-style dramatization, it could be a lotta fun and draw in rubes. We take the video of the B riots, cut pieces of it, take the sound behind it, get several volunteers, get a couple of them to dress in black. Get some college-age guys to play attendees at that educational institution whose name escapes me. Have the whole crew go out into the quad at night, stage it to look like an arsonist fled and the guys grabbed her (so you would only need about 6 total actors). Have the three or four actors grab a couple of the black-clad actors, ideally those who have no internet presence. Have the guys unmask the arsonists with riot noise playing in the background, extracted from the actual riot. Have them demand their identities. They give false names, but then have the guys find they are carrying wallets with matching photo ID. They say HEY! This one's name is Susie May Rottencrotch! And this one's name is Homer Schlabotnik! Someone pulls out a phone and OK Googles both. Rottencrotch turns out to have FaceBook pages revealing she is a Brietbart follower and Schlabotnik is an activist from Commies on Campus. Both pages are fake of course, which is part of the gag, but we aren't trying to fool anyone, for the video itself had a leader saying it was all in fun. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 12 18:52:39 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:52:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Raymond Smullyan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <049201d28561$2fb579f0$8f206dd0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 9:13 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Raymond Smullyan I was sorry to hear that the great logician Raymond Smullyan died on February 6 at the age of 97. I ?first ? read ?"? The tao is silent ?" many years ago and it is still one of my favorite books. ? John K Clark Doh damn. I really liked Tau is Silent as well. 97 is pretty good in any case. I didn?t even know he was still alive until I heard he wasn?t. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Feb 12 20:04:26 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:04:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] upcoming book Message-ID: " To Be a Machine: Adventures Among Cyborgs, Utopians, Hackers, and the Futurists Solving the Modest Problem of Death" Zoltan Istvan = pub. by Doubleday Also, article in NYT Magazine this day - Sunday. Picture of bus: The Immortality Bus Author runs Eternal Life Fan Club online. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 16:54:34 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:54:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: I feel like we?re repeatedly saying many things back and forth, but filing to communicate. I?m talking about two types of speaking. There is qualia blind speaking, and there is speaking that is not qualia blind. You seem to be thinking that all the speaking I?m talking about is qualia blind speaking, and not understanding what I mean by speaking that is not qualia blind. You are not understanding what might enable someone to be able to make a statement like: ?My knowledge of red is like your knowledge of green? in a way that is demonstrably provable to everyone both objectively and subjectively, by various effing of the ineffable techniques. Once we can use binding systems, and eff to each other what our conscious knowledge is qualitatively like, in ways that are demonstrable to all, in both subjective and objective ways... Once we can do this, qualia inverts and qualia zombies (those with abstracted knowledge that is devoid of any qualia) will talk in very different ways when talking about what their knowledge is qualitatively like. Another part of the communication problem is that you seem to not fully understand the implication or function of the ?binding system? and the function it performs during neural substitution. Also, you don?t seem to understand the implication of being able to connect two brains with binding systems, enabling two brains to eff the ineffable in the strongest undeniable way. I talk about a simplistic binding system that is binding two elemental qualitative representations together. When you replace half the representations of knowledge with something that is qualitatively different, in order for the binding system to behave the same, you must map the new qualitatively different representations back to the original, for the binding system to behave the same. And when you finally replace the binding system, you must then invert all the representations of knowledge being feed to it, before it can behave the same. This simplistic system behaves exactly as we both predict, during the neural substitution. You seem to miss the fact that when you scale this binding system up to include all of our diverse qualitative knowledge, you must replace all of the knowledge representations being fed to the binding system at the same time you replace the entire binding system. Again, so that the system will behave exactly as you and I agree will happen, as the neural substitution progresses. I see no evidence that you fully understand the implications of what I?m trying to describe with all this. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 8:34 am, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You said: "You talk about a 'detectably different behaviour awareness' >> but you agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same." But I >> only said it would be the same for external behavior that can be qualia >> blind, like, picking strawberries. If you include the internal behavior or >> the qualitative behavior of the knowledge itself that is required when >> asking questions like: "Does your knowledge of red behave like my redness, >> or like my greenness?" the behavior will be opposite for the invert. >> > > You're contradicting yourself here because you previously agreed that the > *observable behaviour* will be the same. Speaking is *observable > behaviour*. This is why I have been labouring the point and emphasising it > with asterisks! So the subject will not only pick the strawberries, he will > also say the strawberries look red exactly as they did before the > substitution, even if all or half of his visual qualia associated with the > strawberries have turned green, or disappeared altogether leaving him blind. > > And since you will be able to tell the difference when half of the >> glutamate has been replaced with glycene, before replacing the single >> awareness neuron, all the glycene that has been substituted for glutamate >> will have to be interpreted back to glutamate to be fed to the not yet >> replaced binding neuron that binds all the knowledge together to make one >> composite experience be the same. As you said, you will not be able to >> replace any of the glutamate, being fed to the binding system (as you will >> be aware of the difference), until you replace the entire binding system >> with something that knows how to interpret glycerine, and behave as if it >> was glutamate. >> >> If the binding system that enables you to experience all your diverse >> knowledge as one compositely experience is more complex than one neuron, >> describe whatever different way you will achieve the singular composite >> experience. With that we will be able to predict in a falsifiable way, >> exactly when the qualia will dance (until you correctly provide >> interpretation hardware that will interpret that which is not red, as if it >> was), and you will only be able to finally reproduce the same external >> behavior when the entire binding system has been substituted - resulting in >> a detectable (via whatever binding system you use) qualia invert. >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu., 9 Feb. 2017 at 4:25 am, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You said: >> >> "Anyway, these are peripheral considerations to the central argument. I >> have asked you to state what you think would happen if a substitution were >> made with a component that has the same *observable behaviour* as the >> neural component you think is essential for particular qualia." >> >> I thought I have answered this many times, so thanks for letting me know >> that I'm still not communicating. Let me try to clearly answer this >> specific question: >> >> Absolutely, yes, according to a qualitative blind definition of >> "*observable behaviour*" the behaviour would be the same. That is why I >> always talk about two people behaving identically (finding and picking >> strawberries), yet they have inverted red/green qualia. Since the >> "*observable behaviour*" is qualia blind, it sees the identical behaviour >> of the two people behaving the same, but it is blind to the different >> behaviors of the inverted qualitative awareness. >> >> >> If changing the glutamate receptors changes red qualia to green, then >> changing the receptors in half the brain should invert the qualia that half >> of the brain is responsible for. So if the subject sees a field of >> strawberries after the change, one half if the strawberries will look red >> and the other half will look green. Yet the subject will not notice a >> change, and will tell you that all the strawberries look red, just as >> before. Or to change the experiment slightly, as a result of some neural >> substitution all of the visual qualia disappear, but the subject doesn't >> notice, continues to describe red strawberries as before, and is able to >> pick the strawberries as before. Would you still insist that the qualia >> have been inverted or eliminated even though the subject can notice no >> internal difference and the experimenter can notice no external difference? >> In what sense is a change in qualia a change if there is neither a >> subjective nor objective difference? >> >> When you include in the system, the behaviour that is the redness >> awareness, and the detectably different behaviour that is the greenness >> awareness - the external behaviour is the same, but they are finding the >> strawberry for inverted behavioural reasons or they are finding the >> strawberry for qualitatively inverted initial causal behaviours. >> >> >> You talk about a "detectably different behaviour awareness" but you >> agreed above that the observable behaviour is the same. >> >> Again, what is required is some well defined or testable way to >> qualitatively eff ineffable qualities. What makes something ineffable is >> the fact that an abstracted representation like the word red, does not have >> a redness quality. So without having some kind of way to know how to >> interpret an abstracted representation to get back to the original quality >> of the composite knowledge being observed to know the intended qualitative >> meaning of a word like red, one remains qualia blind. >> >> So, you must have some kind of minimal awareness behavioural requirements >> like including two qualitatively diverse representations of knowledge, and >> a way to bind them together to form a composite qualitative conscious >> awareness. This diverse composite qualitative awareness behaviour needs to >> be the behavioural mechanism that enables the system to answer questions >> like: "No, my qualitative knowledge of red is more like your qualitative >> knowledge of green." >> >> >> That would be difficult, if I can't even notice when my own qualia change >> or disappear! >> >> There are many testable theoretical ways one might achieve this kind of >> detectably diverse qualitative composite awareness with materialist >> theories. I only use glutamate, because it is the simplest and most >> straight forward to understand. I've tried to find some functional way the >> behaviour of redness knowledge could have distinguishable from greenness >> behavioural properties, but not only can I not do it, it seems impossible. >> You said: "I don't see why you should consider this 'miraculous'". To me, >> if it is impossible to come up with any theoretically testable way to to do >> this kind of detectable effing of the ineffable within a functionalist >> theory, then the only conclusion a reasonable person can come to is that it >> is some kind of "miracle." In order for one to not think it is simply >> magic, someone must falsify the belief that it can't be done, by providing >> any kind of theoretically possible way to observe qualitatively diverse >> awareness behaviour in a detectable effing of the ineffable way. >> >> >> You've said you don't find it problematic that qualia might be associated >> with a substance but you do find it problematic that they might be >> associated with a process. I don't see why you would have this intuition. >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 18:28:05 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 13:28:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 , Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > I feel like we?re repeatedly saying many things back and forth, but filing > to communicate. > ?Me too.? ?> ? > I?m talking about two types of speaking. There is qualia blind speaking, > and there is speaking that is not qualia blind. > ?But when communicating with other human beings (or with anything else) you have absolutely positively no way of knowing if the speech is qualia blind or not unless you make certain assumptions, such as if the speech is intelligent then it is not qualia blind. Fortunately it's easy to determine if the speaker is intelligent blind or not, but without the assumption of a link between intelligence and qualia you'd have no reason not to conclude you're the only conscious thing in the universe. ? > ?> ? > You seem to be thinking that all the speaking I?m talking about is qualia > blind speaking, and not understanding what I mean by speaking that is not > qualia blind. > > ?But how do you know which it is? All you know for certain is that noises are issuing from that other person's mouth, to conclude more you need to make assumptions that you can NOT prove and will never be able to prove, but we all make these assumptions because none of us could function if we really believed we were the only conscious being in existence. > ?> ? > You are not understanding what might enable someone to be able to make a > statement like: ?My knowledge of red is like your knowledge of green? in a > way that is demonstrably provable to everyone both objectively and > subjectively, > ?You are entirely correct and have hit the core of the matter. I do not understand how even in theory I could prove both objectively and subjectively ? ? that ?my ?qualia knowledge of red is like your ?qualia ? knowledge of green ?.? > ?> ? > you don?t seem to understand the implication of being able to connect two > brains with binding systems, enabling two brains to eff the ineffable in > the strongest undeniable way. > ?Correct again. I do not understand how a new being called Brent Clark would know what it's like to be either Brent Allsop ? or John Clark.? > ?> ? > I talk about a simplistic binding system that is binding two elemental > qualitative representations together. When you replace half the > representations of knowledge with something that is qualitatively > different, in order for the binding system to behave the same, > > ?Behave the same? ? Brent Clark ? would be something new, he's not going to behave like ? Brent Allsop ? nor John Clark. And the same would be true subjectively, when Brent Clark ? looks at a red strawberry he'd have no way of knowing if the qualia he's experiencing came from Brent Allsop ? or John Clark or from neither and was something brand new experienced by nobody else before in the entire history of the world. > ?> ? > you must replace all of the knowledge representations being fed to the > binding system at the same time you replace the entire binding system. Again, > so that the system will behave exactly as you and I agree will happen, as > the neural substitution progresses. > > ?If you swap all my qualia knowledge of red with green then ?yes my objective behavior will be exactly the same, but my subjective experience will be exactly the same too, I couldn't even tell you'd actually done anything. > ?> ? > I see no evidence that you fully understand the implications of what I?m > trying to describe with all this. > > ?You see no evidence of understanding because there is none. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 21:19:22 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 14:19:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi John, I?ve touched on this before, but it still seems to be a problem in our communication. Within my model, there are multiple types of qualia, there is composite qualia and elemental qualia. A composite quale is made up of lots of elemental qualia bound together. So, composite Brent redness, has all my memories of red bound to it. And composite John red, instead, has all of Johns memories of red bound to it. And, there must be some common elemental qualities from which these complex objects are built. If you strip away all the memories of red, and you strip away all other information, such as yourself perceiving it, and so on, you are left with just plain and simple redness. It is very possible that there is some common qualitative element such as plain redness, that your and my composite redness qualia share. Whenever I talk about ?effing the ineffable? I am always assuming and talking about an elemental level, that can be shared between brains, without the qualia having to be Brent-John (or a completely different person/set of memories than you and I) redness. Brent On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:28 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 , Brent Allsop wrote: > > ?> ? >> I feel like we?re repeatedly saying many things back and forth, but >> filing to communicate. >> > > ?Me too.? > > ?> ? >> I?m talking about two types of speaking. There is qualia blind >> speaking, and there is speaking that is not qualia blind. >> > > ?But when communicating with other human beings (or with anything else) > you have absolutely positively no way of knowing if the speech is qualia > blind or not unless you make certain assumptions, such as if the speech is > intelligent then it is not qualia blind. Fortunately it's easy to determine > if the speaker is intelligent blind or not, but without the assumption of a > link between intelligence and qualia you'd have no reason not to conclude > you're the only conscious thing in the universe. ? > > > >> ?> ? >> You seem to be thinking that all the speaking I?m talking about is qualia >> blind speaking, and not understanding what I mean by speaking that is not >> qualia blind. >> >> > ?But how do you know which it is? All you know for certain is that noises > are issuing from that other person's mouth, to conclude more you need to > make assumptions that you can NOT prove and will never be able to prove, > but we all make these assumptions because none of us could function if we > really believed we were the only conscious being in existence. > > >> ?> ? >> You are not understanding what might enable someone to be able to make a >> statement like: ?My knowledge of red is like your knowledge of green? in a >> way that is demonstrably provable to everyone both objectively and >> subjectively, >> > > ?You are entirely correct and have hit the core of the matter. I do not > understand how even in theory I could prove > both objectively and subjectively > ? ? > that > ?my ?qualia > knowledge of red is like your > ?qualia ? > knowledge of green > ?.? > > >> ?> ? >> you don?t seem to understand the implication of being able to connect two >> brains with binding systems, enabling two brains to eff the ineffable in >> the strongest undeniable way. >> > > ?Correct again. I do not understand how a new being called Brent Clark > would know what it's like to be either > Brent Allsop > ? or John Clark.? > > >> ?> ? >> I talk about a simplistic binding system that is binding two elemental >> qualitative representations together. When you replace half the >> representations of knowledge with something that is qualitatively >> different, in order for the binding system to behave the same, >> >> > ?Behave the same? ? > Brent Clark > ? would be something new, he's not going to behave like ? > Brent Allsop > ? nor John Clark. And the same would be true subjectively, when > Brent Clark > ? looks at a red strawberry he'd have no way of knowing if the qualia he's > experiencing came from > Brent Allsop > ? or John Clark or from neither and was something brand new experienced by > nobody else before in the entire history of the world. > > >> ?> ? >> you must replace all of the knowledge representations being fed to the >> binding system at the same time you replace the entire binding system. Again, >> so that the system will behave exactly as you and I agree will happen, as >> the neural substitution progresses. >> >> > ?If you swap all my qualia knowledge of red with green then ?yes my > objective behavior will be exactly the same, but my subjective experience > will be exactly the same too, I couldn't even tell you'd actually done > anything. > > >> ?> ? >> I see no evidence that you fully understand the implications of what I?m >> trying to describe with all this. >> >> > ?You see no evidence of understanding because there is none. > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 13 23:24:30 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 18:24:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:19 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > ?> ? > Within my model, there are multiple types of qualia, there is composite > qualia and elemental qualia. A composite quale is made up of lots of > elemental qualia bound together. > ? > So > ? > , composite Brent redness, has all my memories of red bound to it. And > composite John red, instead, has all of Johns memories of red bound to it. > And, there must be some common elemental qualities from which these complex > objects are built. > > ?As you have correctly pointed out electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength of 700 nanometers is is not anybodies red qualia, although it is part of it. The red qualia results from the interaction of 700 nanometer light with a particular brain, change either one and the resulting qualia produced could change. ? > It is very possible that there is some common qualitative element such as > plain redness, that your and my composite redness qualia share. > ?Yes it's possible, maybe your qualia experience of red is identical to mine, but we know from mathematics that ?some statements are true but can never be proven even in theory, and this is one of them. My brain is different from yours, so the only way I could know for certain what it's like when you interact with 700 nanometer light is for something to change the way the atoms in my brain are organized until it is identical with your brain; but even then "I" still would't know because then I'd no longer be John Clark, I'd be Brent Allsop. > ?> ? > Whenever I talk about ?effing the ineffable? I am always assuming and > talking about an elemental level, that can be shared between brains, > > ?Experiencing the ineffable is easy, just loo at a red strawberry, but communicating the ineffable ?is a contradiction in terms.? John K Clark >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 12:02:26 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 12:02:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <292deef5-10e8-d35e-ba23-a9eeb48f4aba@gmail.com> <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brent Allsop wrote: >I feel like we?re repeatedly saying many things back and forth, but filing to communicate. I?m talking about two types of speaking. There is qualia blind speaking, and there is speaking that is not qualia blind. You seem to be thinking that all the speaking I?m talking about is qualia blind speaking, and not understanding what I mean by speaking that is not qualia blind. You are not understanding what might enable someone to be able to make a statement like: ?My knowledge of red is like your knowledge of green? in a way that is demonstrably provable to everyone both objectively and subjectively, by various effing of the ineffable techniques. Once we can use binding systems, and eff to each other what our conscious knowledge is qualitatively like, in ways that are demonstrable to all, in both subjective and objective ways... Once we can do this, qualia inverts and qualia zombies (those with abstracted knowledge that is devoid of any qualia) will talk in very different ways when talking about what their knowledge is qualitatively like.< I would like to first to discuss speaking, the *observable behaviour* that we see (mouth moving) and hear (sound waves issue forth from the mouth and hit our ears). Then, we can discuss the qualia that are associated with speaking. Is that OK? Speaking, the *observable behaviour*, is due to a sequence of nerve impulses sent to the muscles of the vocal cords, tongue and mouth, causing these muscles to contract in certain patterns while air is expelled from the lungs. Leading to these nerve impulses is a complex chain of neural events in the brain. If the speech is about seeing strawberries, then this chain of neural events will involve neurons in the visual cortex. Some of the neurons in the visual cortex will interact with each other using glutamate and glutamate receptors. Consider the glutamate receptors that, when glutamate binds, open ion channels allowing potassium ions to pass, leading to depolarisation of the cell membrane and propagation of an action potential down the axon. Now, we make these changes: in the presynaptic neuron replace the glutamate with glycine; in the postsynaptic neuron replace the glutamate receptors with glycine receptors that open ion channels when glycine binds in the same way as the original glutamate receptors do when glutamate binds. By analogy, we have changed the key (glutamate to glycine) and we have also changed the lock (glutamate receptor to glycine receptor), so we can still get through the door (potassium ion channels open). Is this clear so far? Now, it should be clear that the *observable behaviour* of the brain with the modified neurons should be the same as the original brain. This is because the modified neurons will fire in the same sequence and for the same duration as the original neurons, and consequently so will all the neurons that receive input from them, and so will the muscles that control speech. So the subject with the modified neurons will have the same speaking *observable behaviour*. If the subject with the unmodified brain says that he can see red strawberries, then after the brain modification he will say that the strawberries still look red, exactly the same as before. Do you agree about this *observable behaviour*? Here is the point where we can move from discussion of *observable behaviour* to discussion of qualia. Given the hypothesis that red qualia are due to glutamate, how do you reconcile the fact that we have swapped glutamate for glycine but the subject still says that everything looks red like before? Do you think that he is mistaken about his qualia? How is this possible? >Another part of the communication problem is that you seem to not fully understand the implication or function of the ?binding system? and the function it performs during neural substitution. Also, you don?t seem to understand the implication of being able to connect two brains with binding systems, enabling two brains to eff the ineffable in the strongest undeniable way.< Whatever function any part of the brain performs before neural substitution, it will perform the same function after neural substitution, otherwise the substituted component is not functionally identical. In the example above, if we just swap glutamate for glycine it won't work; if we just swap glutamate receptors for glycine receptors it won't work; but if we swap both then it will work. >I talk about a simplistic binding system that is binding two elemental qualitative representations together. When you replace half the representations of knowledge with something that is qualitatively different, in order for the binding system to behave the same, you must map the new qualitatively different representations back to the original, for the binding system to behave the same. And when you finally replace the binding system, you must then invert all the representations of knowledge being feed to it, before it can behave the same. This simplistic system behaves exactly as we both predict, during the neural substitution. You seem to miss the fact that when you scale this binding system up to include all of our diverse qualitative knowledge, you must replace all of the knowledge representations being fed to the binding system at the same time you replace the entire binding system. Again, so that the system will behave exactly as you and I agree will happen, as the neural substitution progresses. I see no evidence that you fully understand the implications of what I?m trying to describe with all this.< You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 21:09:56 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:09:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Nanotechnology and chemistry Message-ID: As far as I know this is the first time somebody has used nanotechnology to make a molecule that nobody has been able to make with conventional chemistry. And as a bonus the molecule made might even be useful in quantum computers: https://qz.com/910146/ibm-ibm-researchers-have-created-a-triangular-molecule-that-chemists-thought-was-impossible-and-it-could-power-quantum-computers/ John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 05:47:12 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:47:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise so we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our misunderstanding is captured by you with this: On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative > representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to > consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is > that if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* > then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example > of this which I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the > glutamate/glycine swap. > Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of doing neuro substitution. Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is binding the two different representations into one composite experience. The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively the same or not. So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is performing the function of binding these two representations of information together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of qualia is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of the functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective way of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that has or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene that performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make one composite qualitative experience. Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it being the source of all the "hard" problems. If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution occurs. If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable behavior*. Does that help? Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 18:54:18 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:54:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI humor Message-ID: > > ? > I have been fiddling with an idea about an ai that has fairly severe > problems with synonyms, antonyms, homophones etc. > > > > So, for instance: > > > > AI - that guy sure has a starboardly body. > > > > Straight man: huh? Did your creativity circuits go blooey? > > > > AI - well, if a hefty man can be said to have a portly body, can't > somebody skinny have a starboardly body? > > > > Or > > > > AI - I am so hungry that I could eat a guide. > > > > SM - hmmm. Guide, lead, steer - that's it! You are talking about beef > cattle, eh? > > > > In one of my chemically induced moods I had this idea. Most ideas formed > in that state are so nonprofound it's funny, but I think this one has a > possibility of being turned into a real online comic. But my sense of > humor is kinda wacky, so I don't know if the above joke is kinda funny or > just dumb. Surely thousands of other jokes could be created given this > premise. > ?So I thought I'd give members of the group the idea and see if they run with it. Thus, please provide your own AI misstatement or situation, if you will.? > > > bill w > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 20:26:15 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:26:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You run into problems with "don't explai the joke", but if you can navigate that you mohgt have something. Minimize word count on explanations, and leave the actual last step as one the viewer can easily figure out. Also perhaps use that confusion as a generator, and/or weave the explanation into the setup. For example: "That guy went on such a diet, he went from a portly body to a starboardly!" On Feb 15, 2017 10:55 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: ? > I have been fiddling with an idea about an ai that has fairly severe > problems with synonyms, antonyms, homophones etc. > > > > So, for instance: > > > > AI - that guy sure has a starboardly body. > > > > Straight man: huh? Did your creativity circuits go blooey? > > > > AI - well, if a hefty man can be said to have a portly body, can't > somebody skinny have a starboardly body? > > > > Or > > > > AI - I am so hungry that I could eat a guide. > > > > SM - hmmm. Guide, lead, steer - that's it! You are talking about beef > cattle, eh? > > > > In one of my chemically induced moods I had this idea. Most ideas formed > in that state are so nonprofound it's funny, but I think this one has a > possibility of being turned into a real online comic. But my sense of > humor is kinda wacky, so I don't know if the above joke is kinda funny or > just dumb. Surely thousands of other jokes could be created given this > premise. > ?So I thought I'd give members of the group the idea and see if they run with it. Thus, please provide your own AI misstatement or situation, if you will.? > > > 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 Feb 15 20:44:16 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:44:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > You first want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate > *observable behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." > ?Yes exactly.? ? Replicating intelligent behaviour was good enough for Evolution because unlike qualia Evolution can actually observe behavior, so it's good enough for me.? > But even if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still > missing or removing some important functionality. In the past you never > want to move beyond this, > ?Move? beyond this ? to where? ? If qualia comes from intelligent behavior and if computer scientists can explain how to produce intelligent behavior then I don't see what more needs to be said on the scientific subject of qualia. I don't see what more could be said even in theory. > ?> ? > The problem is, I can't point out the required functionality being > removed, until you first understand and agree with some other things in the > qualitative theory. > ?I don't know what that means.? I know you want an answer but I don't even know the question. > ?> ? > I can't yet accept this functionalist way of doing neuro substitution. > ?And yet I'll bet you ? accept ?the functionalist way of doing ?atomic? substitution ? because otherwise you'd ?have to conclude that you are quite literally not the man you were last year and you are in fact last year's mashed potatoes. Neurons are made of atoms so if you accept atomic substitution why not neuro substitution? > ?> ? > Let's start on the subjective side of things, > ?That is a *TERRIBLE* ?place to start because you've only got one example of subjectivity and science is based on repeatability, so no viable scientific theory can result if you start from just one example. On the other hand you've got billions of examples of intelligent behavior right now, and if you look at the Evolutionary record you've got many trillions of examples, so that is the obvious place to start. ?> ? > So, given that we subjectively know that > ? [...]? > ?We? The only subjective knowledge of subjectivity that exists in the universe is ? stuff that I, John K Clark have personally discovered. That's it, no exceptions.? ?> ? > would you agree with the following? There must be something that is > performing the functionality of the redness experience, > ?Yes one of the many functions the human brain has is the ability to distinguish red from green, and the important thing about red and green is not their absolute value but simply the fact that they are different. ? ?> ? > You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first focus > on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* then the > qualia will also necessarily be replicated." > ?I said it before I'll say it again, Evolution produced me and I am conscious and yet Evolution can't directly detect qualia in others any better than I can, therefore I conclude the logical place to start this investigation is by figuring out how observable intelligent behavior works. I don't know if you're conscious too but if you are then you should find this argument as compelling as I do. > ?> ? > Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the > glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison > neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison > functionality, > ?I agree, but the brain is more than just one neuron. If you swapped the way a neuron responds to new red and green signals coming from your eyes without also changing how your memories are associated with red and green then you'd stop your car at green lights and drive through red ones. John K Clark ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Feb 15 21:56:06 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 21:56:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> Brent, you'll probably ignore this as you have my other posts on this subject, but I think these things still bear saying, as there are spectators to all these conversations, and while a bit of light-hearted bantering about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is fine, I'm uncomfortable about letting people think that most of us actually believe in angels in the first place. That was a metaphor, by the way :D What I mean is, I have to take issue with the basic assumptions you make in your arguments. e.g.: "If you strip away all the memories of red, and you strip away all other information, such as yourself perceiving it, and so on, you are left with just plain and simple redness" That makes as much sense as saying that if you strip away all the cogs, springs and levers in a clock, you are left with just plain and simple time-telling. In other words, none. It's the memories and perceptions that /create/ redness. Nothing 'plain and simple' about it. This is the fundamental mistake that I think you make: Assuming that complex, combinatorial phenomena are actually 'fundamental properties'. They are not, and I don't see any way they possibly could be. If they were, it would be possible to demonstrate their existence outside of a human mind. Can you show that 'red' exists outside a human mind? Aside from that, you do tend to make various simple mistakes of fact. e.g. in Vol 160, Issue 3 you write: "The perception of a strawberry starts with the target of perception or the surface of the strawberry having a set of physical qualities, (it's ability to reflect something like 650 NM light) that we think of or interpret as being "red". There is the causally downstream set of physical qualities which are very different from the set of physical qualities the surface of the strawberry has. This is the 650 NM light." Fair enough so far (apart from the equivalence of 650nm light with 'red', but read on), but then you say: "Then, there is a translation mechanism (the retina) which translate the physical qualities of the light into a different set of physical qualities (the red and green signal traveling down your optic nerve)" The crucial point here is that /there are no red and green signals in the optic nerve/, in the way there are, say, 'red' and 'green' colour codes in a computer. Neither is 650nm light the same thing as 'red'. There is in fact no neural representation of 'red' in our optic nerves. If you took an axon at random from the optic nerve, and recorded the signals travelling down it, there is no way you, or anyone else, could tell if it was signalling the presence of a red-green, luminance, or blue-yellow colour channel (there's no such thing as 'red', 'green', 'blue', etc., signals as such, in the visual system. Search on "colour opponent theory" for details), or a light patch in the left field of vision, a dark patch in the right field, an edge at 65 degrees, or indeed any kind of meaningful visual stimulus, without also knowing a lot more about how it's connected. At this stage of our perception, the concept of 'red' /does not yet exist/. This is a crucially important fact, because it shows that the perception of 'red' is not seamlessly and rigidly connected to a 'red' object (meaning something that reflects ~650nm light) in our field of vision. There's a very simple experiment you can do to confirm this. Take a red object outside at night and look at it under moonlight. Is it red? No? OK, maybe that's because the moon doesn't reflect any 650nm light (do you really think this is true?), so let's try a different colour. How about a yellow object? Blue? Green? Can you see what I'm getting at? We don't /perceive/ something like 'red', it's more that we /create/ it, in our minds, from a complex set of inputs, including but by no means limited to, what comes in through our optic nerves. Here's another example. If you have a white object, and look at it through a pair of spectacles with a red filter in one eye, and a blue filter in the other, what colour is the object? The only way of making sense of the signals in the optic nerve would be to map exactly where an axon comes from and goes to, because visual information is coded by something called 'line-labelling', where the meaning of a signal is entirely dependent on what it's connected to. If you took an axon that normally conveys the presence of, for argument's sake, a dot of red in the centre of your right eye (as I've said, it's not that simple, but never mind), and connected it to a slightly different part of the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus to the one it normally synapses with, then that signal would mean something totally different. It could even mean a sound or a stab of pain in your leg, if it was moved so as to synapse with a neuron just a few millimetres away from its original target. And it makes not a jot of difference which neurotransmitter caused that neuron to send a signal down its axon. Not does it make a jot of difference which neurotransmitter it releases at its axon terminals, to the meaning of the signals that the downstream neurons convey. In fact the neurotransmitters, as I've alluded to in a previous post (and as Stathis points out), are kind of irrelevant. They are just signals, and what they convey is /completely independent of what they are/, rather like a 1 and a 0 in a digital computer. "What does 1 mean?" Silly question, isn't it? Ditto "what does glutamate mean?". The meaning is totally dependent on the context. In our brains, that context is whether the receiving neuron is positively or negatively polarised by its glutamate receptors, and which other neurons it synapses with. Replace glutamate with something else, and make the receptors correspond, and there will be absolutely no difference. You will no doubt disagree, but I insist that /glutamate on its own means absolutely nothing/. Science tells us this, and if you disagree, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing against science. Philosophising about our minds is all very well, but it really does have to start with some basic neurobiology, or it's totally meaningless. I'm no expert in sensory neurobiology, but I know enough about it to see that these ideas about red qualia etc., that you propound, are totally orthogonal to the known science about how our minds work. But I can also see that you're trying to convey /something/. So, the challenge is: Can you reformulate your arguments in line with the known science of how the brain works? No more 'fundamental redness', no more 'glutamate is red'. Stick with the science, and maybe we'll understand what you're actually trying to say. Ben Zaiboc From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 22:58:23 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:58:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Hi Clark, The single binding neuron, like glutamate, is just a simplified theoretical (i.e. testable) theory that will surely can be easily proven wrong. It simply represents a required functional part of consciousness, what is required to make very complex compost qualitative experiences. We are aware of all of the diversity, all at the same time as one composite experience. When people do a traditional neural substitution, they end up removing this required critical functionality, causing all the hard problems. The single neuron represents any theoretically possible way of binding all possible elemental qualities into the diverse composite qualitative picture of the world we experience. If you include whatever accomplishes this, however you may theorized it could be possible, in the neuro substitution, you will not have any hard (as in impossible) problems emerge, and everyone will know, via subjective and objective observation what is going on at every step of the neuro substitution. Brent On 2/15/2017 1:44 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Brent Allsop >wrote: > > ?> ? > Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you > replace the glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then > assert that the comparison neuron will behave the same, you are > removing the important comparison functionality, > > > ?I agree, but the brain is more than just one neuron. If you swapped > the way a neuron responds to new red and green signals coming from > your eyes without also changing how your memories are associated with > red and green then you'd stop your car at green lights and drive > through red ones. > > John K Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 03:23:20 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:23:20 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > > Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise so > we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our > misunderstanding is captured by you with this: > > On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative representation". > *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to consider in order to > replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that if you ignore qualia > and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the qualia will also > necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which I believe is > clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. > > > Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are > saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first > want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable > behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even > if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or > removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move > beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I > can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first > understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, > this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this > initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be > able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of > doing neuro substitution. > > Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 > element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a > unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative > representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is > binding the two different representations into one composite experience. > The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative > representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on > which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could > lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively > the same or not. > > So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the > following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of > the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the > functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is > performing the function of binding these two representations of information > together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd > awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. > > You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first focus > on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* then the > qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of qualia > is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of the > functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. > > Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective way > of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that has > or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene that > performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with > subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with > objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd > part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's > sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - > outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge > are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way > it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make > one composite qualitative experience. > > Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the > glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison > neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison > functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate > that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it > be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the > redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge > are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet > you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are > different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro > substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it > being the source of all the "hard" problems. > I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, triggering the next neuron in the chain. Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of events I have described I have missed something and explain how the glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in > some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other > abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be > reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a > neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison > functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being > compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison > functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I > don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically > possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a > binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it > is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution > occurs. > > If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring > and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method > of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious > what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having > two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one > that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and > the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We > will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta > comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the > qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so > you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what > it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always > indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other > after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this > *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on > with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro > substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable > behavior*. > > Does that help? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 03:39:28 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:39:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> References: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 15, 2017 5:10 PM, "Ben" wrote: ... [many awesome words]... I can also see that you're trying to convey /something/. So, the challenge is: Can you reformulate your arguments in line with the known science of how the brain works? No more 'fundamental redness', no more 'glutamate is red'. Stick with the science, and maybe we'll understand what you're actually trying to say. I really enjoyed this fresh breeze in an otherwise stale and musty qualia thread. It still amazes me that so many bytes continue be thrown into this topic, yet neither can we look away. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 16 06:25:47 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 22:25:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again Message-ID: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> A question I posed a long time ago, but I have new insights. Imagine a cube a cm on a side, tossed like a gaming die. By symmetry, any face has the same probability of coming up (or down): one in six. Likewise, a tetrahedron could be tossed and each face would have a one in four chance of landing face down. The same symmetry argument could be made for any of the five platonic solids. Cool but what if we wanted to create an unsymmetrical solid, such as a square based pyramid one cm on a side for the square, and we wanted to make it such that the probability of landing face down on any of the five surfaces was the same. How tall do we need to make it? I get a CG height of h/4. So if we want to make a fair pyramid shaped five sided die, what is h? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8305 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14717 bytes Desc: not available URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 07:09:59 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 23:09:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: I'm not sure, but I *think* this reduces to "keep the CG equidistant from all vertexes". If the CG is h/4 from the square face, then it is 3h/4 from the "top" vertex (as per your diagram). So 3h/4 needs to be the distance from the other vertexes. The 1 cm square face has a diagonal of sqrt(2), so it is sqrt(2)/2 from any of its corners to its center. We can use that corner-to-center line as one side of a right triangle, with another side being from said center of the square to the CG. Per your calculation, this is h/4. The hypotenuse of this triangle is the distance from the CG to the square's corners. It is sqrt( (sqrt(2)/2)^2 + (h/4)^2 ) = sqrt( 2/4 + h^2/16 ). We need this to equal 3h/4. 3h/4 = sqrt( 2/4 + h^2/16 ) square: 9h^2/16 = 2/4 + h^2/16 multiply by 16: 9h^2 = 8 + h^2 subtract h^2 then divide by 8: h^2 = 1 square root: h = 1 So if I have my math and assumption right, that comes to a height of 1 cm if the square base is 1 cm on a side. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 10:25 PM, spike wrote: > > > A question I posed a long time ago, but I have new insights. > > > > Imagine a cube a cm on a side, tossed like a gaming die. By symmetry, any > face has the same probability of coming up (or down): one in six. > Likewise, a tetrahedron could be tossed and each face would have a one in > four chance of landing face down. The same symmetry argument could be made > for any of the five platonic solids. > > > > Cool but what if we wanted to create an unsymmetrical solid, such as a > square based pyramid one cm on a side for the square, and we wanted to make > it such that the probability of landing face down on any of the five > surfaces was the same. How tall do we need to make it? > > > > > > > > I get a CG height of h/4. > > > > > > So if we want to make a fair pyramid shaped five sided die, what is h? > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8305 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14717 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 11:11:47 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:11:47 +0000 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 16 February 2017 at 06:25, spike wrote: > > > A question I posed a long time ago, but I have new insights. > > > > Imagine a cube a cm on a side, tossed like a gaming die. By symmetry, any > face has the same probability of coming up (or down): one in six. > Likewise, a tetrahedron could be tossed and each face would have a one in > four chance of landing face down. The same symmetry argument could be made > for any of the five platonic solids. > > > > Cool but what if we wanted to create an unsymmetrical solid, such as a > square based pyramid one cm on a side for the square, and we wanted to make > it such that the probability of landing face down on any of the five > surfaces was the same. How tall do we need to make it? > > > I get a CG height of h/4. > > > > So if we want to make a fair pyramid shaped five sided die, what is h? > > > The internet spoils everything. :) You can buy 5-side dice already, but in order to roll they must have bevelled edges. < http://www.gamesciencedice.com/Gamescience-Amethyst-d5--Five-sided-die--Plain_p_138.html > BillK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Thu Feb 16 11:48:45 2017 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 04:48:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Raymond Smullyan In-Reply-To: <049201d28561$2fb579f0$8f206dd0$@att.net> References: <049201d28561$2fb579f0$8f206dd0$@att.net> Message-ID: I have to confess that The* Tao is Silent* has sit on my bookshelf for way too many years (okay, decades), partly unread. But didn't he contribute to *The Mind's I?* (Which I definitely read all the way through.) Sorry to hear that he met his extinction without taking the sensible option of cryonics. It's not unlikely (even today) that he had heard nothing about it, other than possibly in fiction. Two comments, one a bit crusty: 97 is a pretty good age to die? I find that hard to imagine. Possibly it was true for R.M. (although what I read of his suggests otherwise). 97 is ridiculously young to die, assuming he wanted to keep learning and exploring (assuming a rejuvenated brain and restored cognitive energy.) My other comment (based on very old and unreliable memories) is that, although I find it hard to take Taoism and its pre-scientific speculations especially seriously, Smullyan took it in an especially interesting direction. Most self-advertised combinations of "Western and Eastern" thought seem to be close to worthless. [Mention Deepak Chopra and I may feel compelled to "school you" in the harshest way possible. :) ] Based on my sadly-faded memories, Smullyan was surely an exception. I hate to any mind with potential go to waste. Especially exceptional ones. --Max ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: spike Date: Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 11:52 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Raymond Smullyan To: ExI chat list *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Sunday, February 12, 2017 9:13 AM *To:* ExI chat list *Subject:* [ExI] Raymond Smullyan I was sorry to hear that the great logician Raymond Smullyan died on February 6 at the age of 97. I ?first ? read ?"? The tao is silent ?" many years ago and it is still one of my favorite books. ? John K Clark Doh damn. I really liked Tau is Silent as well. 97 is pretty good in any case. I didn?t even know he was still alive until I heard he wasn?t. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Max More, PhD Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader* http://www.amazon.com/Transhumanist-Reader-Contemporary-Technology-Philosophy/dp/1118334310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372225570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+transhumanist+reader President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 12:07:26 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:07:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] CERN has proved ghosts don't exist Message-ID: Has the Large Hadron Collider Disproved the Existence of Ghosts? By Ross Pomeroy February 16, 2017 Quotes: Much of the general public probably isn't aware of these fascinating, yet unfortunately, esoteric discoveries at the LHC. Particle physics simply doesn't inspire as much interest as say, ghosts. At least four in ten Americans believe in ghosts, and it's likely that even fewer people are aware of the LHC. On that note, at least one physicist contends that the LHC has, in fact, disproved the existence of ghosts. On a recent broadcast of BBC Radio Four's The Infinite Monkey Cage centered around science and the paranormal, Cox had this to say on the topic: "Before we ask the first question, I want to make a statement: We are not here to debate the existence of ghosts because they don't exist." He continued: "If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made. We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider. That's almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies." --------- BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 16 16:38:28 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 08:38:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <019901d28873$1ad774b0$50865e10$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again >?I'm not sure, but I *think* this reduces to "keep the CG equidistant from all vertexes". ? >?3h/4 = sqrt( 2/4 + h^2/16 ) square: 9h^2/16 = 2/4 + h^2/16 multiply by 16: 9h^2 = 8 + h^2 subtract h^2 then divide by 8: h^2 = 1 square root: h = 1 >?So if I have my math and assumption right, that comes to a height of 1 cm if the square base is 1 cm on a side. Adrian Ja, this is an approach I took back in the same timeframe I was first starting to read ExI-chat, about 24 yrs ago. What I discovered back then is that the pyramid on its triangular face is higher off the table than when on its square face (.25 cm vs ~.335 cm) so the potential energy is lower when resting on the square face than on any of the triangular faces. Here?s my calc on that: At the risk of being considered by the Greek philosophers a crass empiricist, I took a superball and carved a square based pyramid with height approximately equal to side length, and tumbled it on my kitchen floor fifty times: ?and verified what I already suspected, that this shape is way more likely to land on the square face. I made a second one of dimensions h = 1.5 and tossed that one around a bit. However? this was kinda inconclusive by itself, never mind statistical significance for now. Reason: superball material is way too hyperactive for this application. (What the heck is that stuff? Google says it is called Zectron. By fun coincidence, the Google page right up top shows the kind of superball I carved up, with the stars embedded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Ball ) OK so I just contacted my buddy with the 3D printer. He agreed to make me a set of square-based pyramids of various dimensions. We already know that h =1 is too short, and we can pretty much intuit that h =2 is too tall. Shall we create a betting pool? Doesn?t hafta be real money; they can be street cred points. If we do it that way, we can share lines of reasoning. Here?s mine: if we equalize the potential energy in either configuration, I get h = sqrt(2) or sqrt(10)/2 which in decimal is h = 1.414 or h = 1.581 but my experience so far is that both of those answers seem to be still too low. The 1.581 may not be low by much. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9135 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8039 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 17:02:10 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:02:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > ?> ? > The single binding neuron, like glutamate, is just a simplified > theoretical (i.e. testable) theory that will surely can be easily proven > wrong. > > ?How? Explain how a theory that glutamate produces a subjective state at all in somebody other than me can ever be proven or disproven; let alone that it is identical to a specific qualia like mine, such as greenness. ? > ?> ? > It simply represents a required functional part of consciousness, > > ?If it's not a functional ?part of consciousness then it's not a part of consciousness, and if it is not a part of intelligent behavior then Evolution could not have produced it. And yet I have that part because I am unquestionably conscious, and perhaps you are too. Therefore you must either conclude that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligent behavior or explain how this consciousness producing but not intelligent behaving part came into existence, because I know for fact it did at least once and probably did so trillions of times. > ?> ? > When people do a traditional neural substitution, they end up removing > this required critical functionality, causing all the hard problems. > > ?If at the end of the day the neuron ?ends up functioning identically in the way it treats other neurons then what on earth was so "critical" about the "functionality" that was removed? ?What function did it have and why should other neurons or anybody else miss it?? And I still want to know why you remain the same person you were last year even though all the atoms in your neurons have been substituted. > ?> ? > everyone will know, via subjective and objective observation what is going > on at every step of the neuro substitution. > ?The only subjective observation I have ever done or ?will ever do is on myself, and if you are conscious then the only subjective observation ?you ? have ever done or ?will ?ever? do is on ?yourself; if you are not conscious then you have never even done that, you have never observed subjectivity in anything.? Other than your word I have no evidence that you are conscious even if I somehow knew you were not trying to deceive me. Maybe you sincerely believe you are conscious but what you think of as "consciousness" has little relationship to the grand and glorious consciousness of John K Clark. Or maybe it's the other way around, your consciousness is like a supernova while mine is like a pale firefly. Maybe maybe maybe.... nobody knows and nobody will ever know so let's move on to something that, with a lot of effort, we actually can know, like how intelligent behavior works. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 16 17:35:16 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:35:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 3:12 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On 16 February 2017 at 06:25, spike wrote: >>?So if we want to make a fair pyramid shaped five sided die, what is h? >?The internet spoils everything. :) On the contrary, the internet fixes everything. >?You can buy 5-side dice already, but in order to roll they must have bevelled edges. >?BillK Ja BillK, but the goal is not to make a fair 5-sided die, but rather to figure out what dimensions would be needed to make a square-based pyramid gaming die. The reason why I want to know this is that it gives me a clue on why the Big Bang happened. Follow my reasoning please. Suppose you get a bunch of mathematically-empowered fellers (women and the alphabet soup crowd can be fellers too (so don?t jump me on that (we have them at LockMart (a really accomplished technical type gets the title of Feller (and some of the fellers are women.))))) These fellers are arguing about the requisite dimensions of a square based pyramid, as we are doing now, and each comes up with some line of reasoning, Adrian suggests h=1, I think it might be 1.58, and several other fellers come up with different answers based on different lines of reasoning, but all have equations that suggest their answer. Pretty soon one of the fellers will say it: we need to make a set of these, with the dimensions suggested by each of us, and roll em, see who is right, with the grand prize being our everlasting esteem or until we forget. Otherwise we just sit here like Greek philosophers arguing over the number of teeth in a horse?s mouth. We all reluctantly agree the old closed-form equation approach that usually works so well just has its inherent limitations. One of the prol? eh? fellers calls his buddy with the 3D printer and it?s off to the races, ja? Now suppose all this matter and energy that we call reality is a digital simulation of some sort and we are all avatars, created for the entertainment of we don?t know what. Seems reasonable to think that our predecessors were also avatars, and turtles all the way down to before the Big Bang (somehow (since we don?t understand how we could be sims, then we don?t? need to bother explaining how a pre-BB computing device could exist.)) The simulated pre-BB fellers were arguing over what would happen if there was matter and energy, nobody could convince the others, they decided to have a gentle-being?s bet, and the only way to settle it is to Let there be light. If we can?t figure out h on the pyramid die with all this collective mathematical horsepower, we know why the Big Bang happened. That whole scenario has a cool reversal of the usual meme of some kind of super-being created us but we are really digital sims. In that scenario, they are the sims and we are the real deal. Cool! spike I am going to forward this to Anders Sandberg. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 18:59:52 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:59:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> Message-ID: On 16 February 2017 at 17:35, spike wrote: > Ja BillK, but the goal is not to make a fair 5-sided die, but rather to > figure out what dimensions would be needed to make a square-based pyramid > gaming die. The reason why I want to know this is that it gives me a clue > on why the Big Bang happened. > Any square-based pyramid die would not be fair. i.e. if the sides are different shapes, then the chances of falling on each side will not be equal. Quote: What shapes make the best dice? We need to make sure all the faces are the same shape and that all the angles and sides are equal, or some faces will be favoured more than others and so our dice will be "unfair". ------ There is a patent for a 5-sided dice made up of two opposed triangles joined by three rectangles which the inventor claims has tested as a 'fair' dice. BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 16 19:13:53 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:13:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> Message-ID: <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On 16 February 2017 at 17:35, spike wrote: >> Ja BillK, but the goal is not to make a fair 5-sided die, but rather > to figure out what dimensions would be needed to make a square-based > pyramid gaming die... >...Any square-based pyramid die would not be fair. i.e. if the sides are different shapes, then the chances of falling on each side will not be equal... BillK Hi BillK, thanks. My reasoning is based on the intermediate value theorem. If h = 1, we can easily see that it will land on that face more than 20% of the time. If h=2, then most would agree it will land there less than 20% of the time. My reasoning holds that there must be some value for h between the limits of 1 and 2 where that pyramid lands square down 20% of the time. My calcs suggest that number is 1.58 but it is a mathematical model. Please sir, what do you calculate or estimate for h? spike From col.hales at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 20:30:23 2017 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:30:23 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 4:02 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> ?> ? >> The single binding neuron, like glutamate, is just a simplified >> theoretical (i.e. testable) theory that will surely can be easily proven >> wrong. >> >> ?How? Explain how a theory that glutamate produces a subjective state at > all in somebody other than me can ever be proven or disproven; let alone > that it is identical to a specific qualia like mine, such as greenness. ? > > >> ?> ? >> It simply represents a required functional part of consciousness, >> >> ?If it's not a functional ?part of consciousness then it's not a part of > consciousness, and if it is not a part of intelligent behavior then > Evolution could not have produced it. And yet I have that part because I am > unquestionably conscious, and perhaps you are too. Therefore you must > either conclude that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligent behavior > or explain how this consciousness producing but not intelligent behaving > part came into existence, because I know for fact it did at least once and > probably did so trillions of times. > >> ?> ? >> When people do a traditional neural substitution, they end up removing >> this required critical functionality, causing all the hard problems. >> >> ?If at the end of the day the neuron ?ends up functioning identically in > the way it treats other neurons then what on earth was so "critical" about > the "functionality" that was removed? > > ?What function did it have and why should other neurons or anybody else > miss it?? And I still want to know why you remain the same person you were > last year even though all the atoms in your neurons have been substituted. > >> ?> ? >> everyone will know, via subjective and objective observation what is >> going on at every step of the neuro substitution. >> > > ?The only subjective observation I have ever done or ?will ever do is on > myself, and if you are conscious then the > only subjective observation > ?you ? > have ever done or ?will > ?ever? > do is on > ?yourself; if you are not conscious then you have never even done that, > you have never observed subjectivity in anything.? Other than your word I > have no evidence that you are conscious even if I somehow knew you were not > trying to deceive me. Maybe you sincerely believe you are conscious but > what you think of as "consciousness" has little relationship to the grand > and glorious consciousness of John K Clark. Or maybe it's the other way > around, your consciousness is like a supernova while mine is like a pale > firefly. Maybe maybe maybe.... nobody knows and nobody will ever know so > let's move on to something that, with a lot of effort, we actually can > know, like how intelligent behavior works. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > ..... and once again .... here we go .... "ever know so let's move on to something that, with a lot of effort, we actually can know, like how intelligent behavior works." .... in the eyes of a presupposed observer utterly dependent on subjective experience to be an observer, while assuming that a 100% grip on 'intelligent behaviour' can occur without dealing with subjectivity while using it to sort out how intelligent behaviour works! ... while subjectivity is clearly and obviously deeply involved in any ability to be intelligent at all and to observe anything at all and the whole of science is critically dependent on it in a verifiable way. And around we go...... Until we move and discuss our ideas on what science is, and start to systematise the difference between "observing something with subjectivity (scientific observation)" and "having scientific evidence of subjectivity", this discussion will still be going in another 70 years. Something has to change! That something is SCIENCE. Science has to realise the difference between (a) characterising what the universe is made of and (b) characterising how that universe appears to work when you are made of that something (a scientific observer inside it). If the solution to the problem of consciousness is in (a) and all you ever do is (b) "...like how intelligent behaviour works" you are royally screwed forever! We have to deal with subjectivity. It's real. It's central to everything in science and arguably presupposed while being an explanandum .... and thereby runs rings around a science that presuppposes it. The time for this endless bullshit to stop is now. colin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 16 22:36:09 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:36:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> Message-ID: On 16 February 2017 at 19:13, spike wrote: > Hi BillK, thanks. My reasoning is based on the intermediate value theorem. > If h = 1, we can easily see that it will land on that face more than 20% of > the time. If h=2, then most would agree it will land there less than 20% of > the time. My reasoning holds that there must be some value for h between > the limits of 1 and 2 where that pyramid lands square down 20% of the time. > My calcs suggest that number is 1.58 but it is a mathematical model. > > Please sir, what do you calculate or estimate for h? > The answer is yes, but....... This problem is mentioned at the foot of this page - To quote the relevant paragraph: Can a non-isohedral fair die exist? Consider a pyramid made from 4 isosceles triangles and a square. If the pyramid is short and fat, the square face will be landed upon more than a fifth of the time. If the pyramid is tall and thin the square face will be landed upon less than a fifth of the time. Is there a height where the square face will be landed upon exactly one fifth of the time??? Yes, for a given set of conditions. If you knew the height, force, elasticity, and throwing method, you could find the right height. However, once the conditions changed, the die would no longer be fair. -------- I think he is saying that if you made your 1.58 die, then people would quickly find tricky ways of throwing the die so that they could change the odds. BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 16 23:42:49 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:42:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> Message-ID: <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:36 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On 16 February 2017 at 19:13, spike wrote: >>... Hi BillK, thanks. ... Please sir, what do you calculate or estimate for h? > >...The answer is yes, but....... >...This problem is mentioned at the foot of this page - http://www.mathpuzzle.com/Fairdice.htm >...To quote the relevant paragraph: Can a non-isohedral fair die exist? Consider a pyramid made from 4 isosceles triangles and a square. If the pyramid is short and fat, the square face will be landed upon more than a fifth of the time. If the pyramid is tall and thin the square face will be landed upon less than a fifth of the time. Is there a height where the square face will be landed upon exactly one fifth of the time??? Yes, for a given set of conditions. If you knew the height, force, elasticity, and throwing method, you could find the right height. However, once the conditions changed, the die would no longer be fair. -------- >...I think he is saying that if you made your 1.58 die, then people would quickly find tricky ways of throwing the die so that they could change the odds. >...BillK _______________________________________________ Hi BillK, note the next sentence right after the part you quoted: ...(NOTE:? I have a strong argument for this, but no proof.)... There ya have it, the thing that might have caused the Big Bang to start with. The pre-Big Bang Sims concluded they have strong arguments but no proof. This whole notion exonerates the Old Ones. In that whole Sim World scenario, those who wrote us would hafta be cruel indeed to make simulated beings that suffer as we do. They could have simulated a universe with less suffering and death. But imagine they were sims themselves, arguing about what would happen if matter and energy existed. Perhaps they ended up with the conclusion that a matter/energy universe would need to be created to try it. Then they aren't really cruel, since they are just sims settling a gentle-sims bet. They don't know what is suffering, being digital mathematical models. Kind of fun way to think of it, ja? OK, I am arguing that this tumbling pyramid question might be a case where we can come up with guesses on h to make square-down = .2, but in the end we must admit we will just have to make some and try it. We might find it is material-dependent, but we don't know. spike From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 00:07:24 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:07:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Mike, Thanks for quoting Ben here. For some reason, I didn't receive his post to this list. Can someone resend it to the list, or directly to me, so I can see all what he said? Thanks Brent On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Feb 15, 2017 5:10 PM, "Ben" wrote: > > ... [many awesome words]... > > > I can also see that you're trying to convey /something/. > > So, the challenge is: Can you reformulate your arguments in line with the > known science of how the brain works? No more 'fundamental redness', no > more 'glutamate is red'. Stick with the science, and maybe we'll understand > what you're actually trying to say. > > > I really enjoyed this fresh breeze in an otherwise stale and musty qualia > thread. > > It still amazes me that so many bytes continue be thrown into this topic, > yet neither can we look away. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 00:19:43 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:19:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> Message-ID: On 16 February 2017 at 23:42, spike wrote: > > Hi BillK, note the next sentence right after the part you quoted: > > ...(NOTE: I have a strong argument for this, but no proof.)... > > There ya have it, the thing that might have caused the Big Bang to start > with. The pre-Big Bang Sims concluded they have strong arguments but no > proof. This whole notion exonerates the Old Ones. In that whole Sim World > scenario, those who wrote us would hafta be cruel indeed to make simulated > beings that suffer as we do. They could have simulated a universe with less > suffering and death. But imagine they were sims themselves, arguing about > what would happen if matter and energy existed. Perhaps they ended up with > the conclusion that a matter/energy universe would need to be created to try > it. Then they aren't really cruel, since they are just sims settling a > gentle-sims bet. They don't know what is suffering, being digital > mathematical models. Kind of fun way to think of it, ja? > > OK, I am arguing that this tumbling pyramid question might be a case where > we can come up with guesses on h to make square-down = .2, but in the end we > must admit we will just have to make some and try it. We might find it is > material-dependent, but we don't know. > When I consider all the many different types of multi-sided dice that are in use, it seems logical that all the faces should be the same shape and all the angles and sides should be equal. Then it doesn't matter how you throw the die or how it hits the surface or which face hits the surface first. I think that if you tried to use a pyramid die you might encounter some difficulty in persuading the other players that it was a fair die. :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 00:29:54 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 00:29:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 17 February 2017 at 00:07, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for quoting Ben here. > For some reason, I didn't receive his post to this list. > Can someone resend it to the list, or directly to me, so I can see all what > he said? > It happens because you are on gmail and Ben is on yahoo mail. For some time when gmail receives an Exi post that came from a yahoo mail address, gmail puts it in the Spam folder because it fails some gmail checks. Other list members not on gmail receive the Exi post OK. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 00:46:01 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:46:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > You run into problems with "don't explai the joke", but if you can > navigate that you mohgt have something. Minimize word count on > explanations, and leave the actual last step as one the viewer can easily > figure out. > > Also perhaps use that confusion as a generator, and/or weave the > explanation into the setup. For example: "That guy went on such a diet, he > went from a portly body to a starboardly!" > > ?------------------------- > ?Thanks. Did not know you were a comic critic (pun intended). But the real idea was for you all to create examples so I could be a critic. bill w ? > ? > On Feb 15, 2017 10:55 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > ? >> I have been fiddling with an idea about an ai that has fairly severe >> problems with synonyms, antonyms, homophones etc. >> >> >> >> So, for instance: >> >> >> >> AI - that guy sure has a starboardly body. >> >> >> >> Straight man: huh? Did your creativity circuits go blooey? >> >> >> >> AI - well, if a hefty man can be said to have a portly body, can't >> somebody skinny have a starboardly body? >> >> >> >> Or >> >> >> >> AI - I am so hungry that I could eat a guide. >> >> >> >> SM - hmmm. Guide, lead, steer - that's it! You are talking about beef >> cattle, eh? >> >> >> >> In one of my chemically induced moods I had this idea. Most ideas formed >> in that state are so nonprofound it's funny, but I think this one has a >> possibility of being turned into a real online comic. But my sense of >> humor is kinda wacky, so I don't know if the above joke is kinda funny or >> just dumb. Surely thousands of other jokes could be created given this >> premise. >> > > ?So I thought I'd give members of the group the idea and see if they run > with it. Thus, please provide your own AI misstatement or situation, if > you will.? > >> >> >> 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 spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 17 00:34:10 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:34:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> Message-ID: <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 4:20 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On 16 February 2017 at 23:42, spike wrote: > >>...Hi BillK, note the next sentence right after the part you quoted: > ... > >>... OK, I am arguing that this tumbling pyramid question might be a case > where we can come up with guesses on h to make square-down = .2, but > in the end we must admit we will just have to make some and try it. > We might find it is material-dependent, but we don't know. >...When I consider all the many different types of multi-sided dice that are in use, it seems logical that all the faces should be the same shape and all the angles and sides should be equal. Then it doesn't matter how you throw the die or how it hits the surface or which face hits the surface first. I think that if you tried to use a pyramid die you might encounter some difficulty in persuading the other players that it was a fair die. :) >...BillK _______________________________________________ Eh... BillK, the question isn't about creating a device with five equal probability outcomes. That is easy: that triangular prism device, or a simple spinner. The question is to figure out with equations and theories what the dimensions of such a device would be. I have three possible answers: h = 1.41, h = 1.58 and h = 1.675 but I disagree with the reasoning behind that last one. The next question is if the device would be material-dependent, and if so, what characteristics of materials would favor the square base and which would favor the triangular faces, and why. I haven't even gotten to applications yet, but let me suggest one. Imagine these devices with reflective surfaces with a range of h values. Imagine them being hurled out over some flat surface and some of them land square-down and some triangle down. In that h range, the higher h units would be more likely to land triangle down, lower h more likely square-down. OK now imagine a light shining directly down from above. The square-down devices reflect the light four ways, but the triangle-down devices reflect it only two ways. The signal return could be detected remotely, which would indicate the range of h predominant in that sample. If you run off to the patent office with the idea, say nice things about me. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 02:58:33 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:58:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 16, 2017 7:31 PM, "BillK" wrote: It happens because you are on gmail and Ben is on yahoo mail. For some time when gmail receives an Exi post that came from a yahoo mail address, gmail puts it in the Spam folder because it fails some gmail checks. Other list members not on gmail receive the Exi post OK. I made a rule in Gmail to never put this list in spam. Now there's a warning that it was destined for spam but rescued. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 03:24:42 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:24:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 16, 2017 7:49 PM, "spike" wrote: OK now imagine a light shining directly down from above. The square-down devices reflect the light four ways, but the triangle-down devices reflect it only two ways. The signal return could be detected remotely, which would indicate the range of h predominant in that sample. If you run off to the patent office with the idea, say nice things about me. I'm late to this conversation, so I'm going to be brief to catch up. My initial thought was that CG would not be enough, then spike used a super ball to suggest material dependence. I imagined alternate scales of this thought puzzle. Ex: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_pyramidal_molecular_geometry I wonder if there might be coatings potential in the light-scattering example spike mentioned, but rather than 1 cm they're in a spraypaint sized application. Also, for the gentle-sims bet for street cred, i posit phi as the magic height. It's magic everywhere else, why not here too? Is there any parallel to the recent "time crystals" conversation if the vertices of this structure were points of an energy diagram? I'm sure I'm using the words incorrectly, but I don't know how to share the pictures in the mind's eye. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 04:04:22 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 21:04:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> References: <58A4CE76.6020202@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Ben, Yes, like you said, I found this in my spam folder. And as Mike indicated he did, I also added a rule to gmail, so hopefully this won't happen again. I'm very sorry I missed (and failed to respond to) any of your previous posts. It looks like you have great stuff to say. We seem to be having definition problems about what "red" means. I completely agree with everything you say about "red" things appearing differently in different lights and different contexts. The normal term "red" can mean many things, but when I talk about the property of "red", it always means a quality something has when it reflects something like 650 NM light. That is an initial causal property of the perception process. The final result of a perception process is our knowledge of the thing reflecting 650 NM light. This subjective knowledge has a redness quality to it. And as you say, the same "red" quality, can be represented by many different redness shades, depending on the context of the red. So, in summery, a "red" property is something that reflects 650 NM light, and a "redness" quality is a quality of our knowledge of such. For all we know, my redness could be more like your greenness - both of which we only say represents the same "red". Would you agree with that, and does that help? Brent On 2/15/2017 2:56 PM, Ben wrote: > Brent, you'll probably ignore this as you have my other posts on this > subject, but I think these things still bear saying, as there are > spectators to all these conversations, and while a bit of > light-hearted bantering about how many angels can dance on the head of > a pin is fine, I'm uncomfortable about letting people think that most > of us actually believe in angels in the first place. > That was a metaphor, by the way :D > > What I mean is, I have to take issue with the basic assumptions you > make in your arguments. e.g.: > > "If you strip away all the memories of red, and you strip away all > other information, such as yourself perceiving it, and so on, you are > left with just plain and simple redness" > > That makes as much sense as saying that if you strip away all the > cogs, springs and levers in a clock, you are left with just plain and > simple time-telling. In other words, none. > > It's the memories and perceptions that /create/ redness. Nothing > 'plain and simple' about it. This is the fundamental mistake that I > think you make: Assuming that complex, combinatorial phenomena are > actually 'fundamental properties'. They are not, and I don't see any > way they possibly could be. If they were, it would be possible to > demonstrate their existence outside of a human mind. Can you show that > 'red' exists outside a human mind? > > Aside from that, you do tend to make various simple mistakes of fact. > e.g. in Vol 160, Issue 3 you write: > > "The perception of a strawberry starts with the target of perception > or the surface of the strawberry having a set of physical qualities, > (it's ability to reflect something like 650 NM light) that we think of > or interpret as being "red". There is the causally downstream set of > physical qualities which are very different from the set of physical > qualities the surface of the strawberry has. This is the 650 NM light." > > Fair enough so far (apart from the equivalence of 650nm light with > 'red', but read on), but then you say: > > "Then, there is a translation mechanism (the retina) which translate > the physical qualities of the light into a different set of physical > qualities (the red and green signal traveling down your optic nerve)" > > The crucial point here is that /there are no red and green signals in > the optic nerve/, in the way there are, say, 'red' and 'green' colour > codes in a computer. Neither is 650nm light the same thing as 'red'. > > There is in fact no neural representation of 'red' in our optic > nerves. If you took an axon at random from the optic nerve, and > recorded the signals travelling down it, there is no way you, or > anyone else, could tell if it was signalling the presence of a > red-green, luminance, or blue-yellow colour channel (there's no such > thing as 'red', 'green', 'blue', etc., signals as such, in the visual > system. Search on "colour opponent theory" for details), or a light > patch in the left field of vision, a dark patch in the right field, an > edge at 65 degrees, or indeed any kind of meaningful visual stimulus, > without also knowing a lot more about how it's connected. > > At this stage of our perception, the concept of 'red' /does not yet > exist/. This is a crucially important fact, because it shows that the > perception of 'red' is not seamlessly and rigidly connected to a 'red' > object (meaning something that reflects ~650nm light) in our field of > vision. There's a very simple experiment you can do to confirm this. > Take a red object outside at night and look at it under moonlight. Is > it red? No? OK, maybe that's because the moon doesn't reflect any > 650nm light (do you really think this is true?), so let's try a > different colour. How about a yellow object? Blue? Green? Can you see > what I'm getting at? We don't /perceive/ something like 'red', it's > more that we /create/ it, in our minds, from a complex set of inputs, > including but by no means limited to, what comes in through our optic > nerves. > Here's another example. If you have a white object, and look at it > through a pair of spectacles with a red filter in one eye, and a blue > filter in the other, what colour is the object? > > The only way of making sense of the signals in the optic nerve would > be to map exactly where an axon comes from and goes to, because visual > information is coded by something called 'line-labelling', where the > meaning of a signal is entirely dependent on what it's connected to. > If you took an axon that normally conveys the presence of, for > argument's sake, a dot of red in the centre of your right eye (as I've > said, it's not that simple, but never mind), and connected it to a > slightly different part of the lateral geniculate nucleus of the > thalamus to the one it normally synapses with, then that signal would > mean something totally different. It could even mean a sound or a stab > of pain in your leg, if it was moved so as to synapse with a neuron > just a few millimetres away from its original target. And it makes not > a jot of difference which neurotransmitter caused that neuron to send > a signal down its axon. Not does it make a jot of difference which > neurotransmitter it releases at its axon terminals, to the meaning of > the signals that the downstream neurons convey. In fact the > neurotransmitters, as I've alluded to in a previous post (and as > Stathis points out), are kind of irrelevant. They are just signals, > and what they convey is /completely independent of what they are/, > rather like a 1 and a 0 in a digital computer. "What does 1 mean?" > Silly question, isn't it? Ditto "what does glutamate mean?". The > meaning is totally dependent on the context. In our brains, that > context is whether the receiving neuron is positively or negatively > polarised by its glutamate receptors, and which other neurons it > synapses with. Replace glutamate with something else, and make the > receptors correspond, and there will be absolutely no difference. You > will no doubt disagree, but I insist that /glutamate on its own means > absolutely nothing/. Science tells us this, and if you disagree, > you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing against science. > > Philosophising about our minds is all very well, but it really does > have to start with some basic neurobiology, or it's totally > meaningless. I'm no expert in sensory neurobiology, but I know enough > about it to see that these ideas about red qualia etc., that you > propound, are totally orthogonal to the known science about how our > minds work. But I can also see that you're trying to convey /something/. > > So, the challenge is: Can you reformulate your arguments in line with > the known science of how the brain works? No more 'fundamental > redness', no more 'glutamate is red'. Stick with the science, and > maybe we'll understand what you're actually trying to say. > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Fri Feb 17 04:08:27 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 20:08:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> Message-ID: <001701d288d3$7e1b6fd0$7a524f70$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 7:25 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On Feb 16, 2017 7:49 PM, "spike" > wrote: OK now imagine a light shining directly down from above. The square-down devices reflect the light four ways, but the triangle-down devices reflect it only two ways. The signal return could be detected remotely, which would indicate the range of h predominant in that sample. If you run off to the patent office with the idea, say nice things about me. I'm late to this conversation, so I'm going to be brief to catch up. >?My initial thought was that CG would not be enough, then spike used a super ball to suggest material dependence? I had a nerf ball I tried to slice up but so far it was an epic fail. It deforms under the blade so I haven?t been able to make a good clean cut. I might try the old nichrome hot wire technique but I don?t have any nichrome. >?Also, for the gentle-sims bet for street cred, i posit phi as the magic height. It's magic everywhere else, why not here too? If that turns out to be right, I will totally swoon. Better yet, if it turns out to be right, we will be famous (but not rich, dammit.) Reasoning: we publish a result like that, the science community will go totally nuts trying to explain why it works. If anyone knows how to make a closed-foam polyvinyl that would work, I can get my buddy to 3D print us a mold. Alternative: we can use that expand-o-foam stuff they sell down there at the hardware store, or perhaps bondo body putty. Or we could make them out of balsa wood (that is the most isotropic wood I know of.) Other ideas? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 05:04:47 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:04:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we experience. That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily inverted. The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, qualitatively correctly. Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if you believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds or paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and John Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be approachable via objective or sharable science? Brent On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > Hi Stathis, > > > Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as > concise so we can make progress with this. I think the key point > in our misunderstanding is captured by you with this: > > > On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing >> necessary to consider in order to replicate *observable >> behaviour*. The argument is that if you ignore qualia and just >> replicate *observable behaviour* then the qualia will also >> necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which I >> believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. >> > > Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you > are saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the > point. You first want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just > replicate *observable behavior* then the qualia will also > necessarily be replicated." But even if I do agree with this, > from how I see things, it is still missing or removing some > important functionality. In the past you never want to move beyond > this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I > can't point out the required functionality being removed, until > you first understand and agree with some other things in the > qualitative theory. So, this time, could you move beyond that, at > least for a bit and digest this initial description, then given > that understanding (if you agree), I'll be able to point out the > reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of doing neuro > substitution. > > Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our > simple 3 element system. The system is experiencing both redness > and greenness as a unified composite qualitative experience. So, > there are two qualitative representations of knowledge and there > is a 3rd part of the system that is binding the two different > representations into one composite experience. The fact that the > system is aware of both of these qualitative representations at > the same time, is the critical base functionality on which the > comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could > lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are > qualitatively the same or not. > > So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the > following? There must be something that is performing the > functionality of the redness experience, and there is something > that is performing the functionality of the greenness, and there > is a 3rd element that is performing the function of binding these > two representations of information together to make a composite > experience - enabling the 3rd awareness/comparison neuron to > indicate whether they are the same or not. > > You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to > first focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate > *observable behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be > replicated." But this ignoring of qualia is the problem, and you > end up removing the most important parts of the functionality we > want to observe as we neuro substitute. > > Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the > objective way of observing things, and for the time being assume > it is glutamate that has or performs the redness experience > functionality, and it is glycene that performs the greenness > experience functionality. Given that, with subjective > observation, we would experience a redness detector and with > objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what > the 3rd part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron > for simplicity's sake) is basically an objective and subjective > comparison system - outputting an indicator as to whether the two > representations of knowledge are functioning the same or not. > This functionality derived from the way it binds together > awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make one > composite qualitative experience. > > Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you > replace the glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then > assert that the comparison neuron will behave the same, you are > removing the important comparison functionality, or simply > falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate that reliably > performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it be > something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing > the redness functionality we know so well). Both representations > of knowledge are now the same qualitative glycene (or the > greenness functionality), yet you are asserting that the output is > still indicating that the two are different. This removal of the > correct functionality as you do the neuro substitution, is why I > can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it being the > source of all the "hard" problems. > > > I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just > respond to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what > neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules > that are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the > appropriate receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are > proteins in the cell membrane which have special sites to which > neurotransmitters attach non-covalently (without forming a permanent > chemical bond), sometimes described as being analogous to a lock and > key mechanism. As a result of this interaction the receptor protein is > pulled into a different shape, leading to a cascade of events in the > neuron. With so-called ionotropic receptors the binding of the > neurotransmitter opens up channels in the receptor allowing ions to > move into and out of the neuron: sodium, potassium or calcium ions. > Since ions are charged entities, this changes the voltage across the > cell membrane, which can then change the shape of transmembrane > proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then cause a > spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and > ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, > triggering the next neuron in the chain. > > Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - > glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the > glutamate receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate > will not bind to glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for > glycine and glutamate receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine > receptors otherwise have similar properties to the glutamate receptors > (open similar ion channels when glycine binds), then the neuron will > behave in the same way in regard to when it will fire, and hence all > the downstream neurons and the muscles will behave in the same way, > and the subject will behave in the same way. "The subject will behave > in the same way" means, among other things, that the subject will say > in a before/after comparison that the strawberries look red to him in > exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't agree with this, > then please point out where in the detailed chain of events I have > described I have missed something and explain how the > glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) > can possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. > > If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or > emerge in some other way or some other abstracted level, then it > is this other abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, > and must be able to be reliably compared via composite awareness. > I am talking about doing a neuro substitution at this level, with > the required qualia comparison functionality, not the level you > are talking about, where the qualia being compared is being > removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison > functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower > level (I don't see how this could be done), then provide at least > one theoretically possible description of such (as I have done > with glutamate, glycene, and a binder neuron to make a composite > experience), and with that, whatever it is, it will be obvious > what happens, and why, as the neural substitution occurs. > > If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of > ignoring and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable > theoretical method of really doing the function of qualitative > comparison, it can be obvious what is going on during the neural > substitution. Let's do this by having two sets of such identical > 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one that doesn't change > and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and the other > one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We will > bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a > meta comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare > all the qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one > of the systems, so you can prove to everyone, both objectively and > subjectively, exactly what it is going on, and why both of the 3 > element systems are always indicating: "It is red" even though one > is the qualia invert of the other after one of the neuro > substitution steps. If you duplicate all this *observable > behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on with > both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro > substituted since you are not removing the most important > *observable behavior*. > > Does that help? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Feb 17 06:49:48 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 01:49:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Colin Hales wrote: ?> ? > We have to deal with subjectivity. ?We? What's with this "we" business? ? ?I have no idea about you, all I know is that I deal with subjectivity ?because subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe; or at least it is in my opinion. ?> ? > The time for this endless bullshit to stop is now. ?I would humbly submit that your plea that the list should immediately stop discussing this subject might have a tad more credibility if you wrote the above sentence at the very beginning of your response and stopped right there, instead you stuck it in at the very end of a long post on this exact same "bullshit" subject. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 06:59:29 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 07:59:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Message-ID: I guess the keyword here is "digital." I am most certainly a computer (a system that computes its behavior according to physical laws), and I most certainly feel. Ergo, computers feel. It remains to be seen if our current concept of "digital" computer can accommodate feelings. Perhaps yes, and perhaps conceptual extensions are needed. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:49 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Colin Hales wrote: > >> > >> We have to deal with subjectivity. > > > We? What's with this "we" business? > > I have no idea about you, all I know is that I deal with subjectivity > because subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe; or at > least it is in my opinion. > >> > >> The time for this endless bullshit to stop is now. > > > I would humbly submit that your plea that the list should immediately stop > discussing this subject might have a tad more credibility if you wrote the > above sentence at the very beginning of your response and stopped right > there, instead you stuck it in at the very end of a long post on this exact > same "bullshit" subject. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 15:20:40 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 08:20:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Giulio, It?s good to hear from you on this topic. It is true, that we are ?computers?, but there is a qualitative difference between the way we do computations (and more specifically, the way we represent knowledge) and abstracted computers do it. Obviously, an abstracted word like ?red? does not have a redness quality we can experience. All the information represented in abstracted computers is made up of the type of abstracted knowledge that is the word red. So, there is a slight qualitative accommodation required before computers can know, what it is like to have knowledge represented by something that has a redness quality, like we do. Brent On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I guess the keyword here is "digital." I am most certainly a computer > (a system that computes its behavior according to physical laws), and > I most certainly feel. Ergo, computers feel. It remains to be seen if > our current concept of "digital" computer can accommodate feelings. > Perhaps yes, and perhaps conceptual extensions are needed. > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 7:49 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Colin Hales > wrote: > > > >> > > >> We have to deal with subjectivity. > > > > > > We? What's with this "we" business? > > > > I have no idea about you, all I know is that I deal with subjectivity > > because subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe; or at > > least it is in my opinion. > > > >> > > >> The time for this endless bullshit to stop is now. > > > > > > I would humbly submit that your plea that the list should immediately > stop > > discussing this subject might have a tad more credibility if you wrote > the > > above sentence at the very beginning of your response and stopped right > > there, instead you stuck it in at the very end of a long post on this > exact > > same "bullshit" subject. > > > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 15:53:30 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:53:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: ?> ? > I guess the keyword here is "digital." ?For over 50 years our digital computers have been able to do things that analog computers can't, ? ?but we haven't found anything a analog computer can do that a digital computer can't. ? ?> ? > I am most certainly a computer(a system that computes its behavior > according to physical laws), and > ? ? > I most certainly feel. Ergo, computers feel. It remains to be seen if > our current concept of "digital" computer can accommodate feelings. > ?No, it remains to be seen when computers will behave as intelligently as humans. I will never know for certain if computers have feelings just as I will never know for certain if you have feelings, even though you just generated the following digital ASCII sequence "I most certainly feel". I have generated similar digital ASCII sequences myself but in my case they represent unquestionable universal truth while the truth or falsehood of your digital sequence will forever remain unknown. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 16:35:44 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 11:35:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> <3c15d9d1-6dd2-cf04-99c2-a3bf64889420@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Brent Allsop wrote: > ?> ? > It is true, that we are ?computers?, but there is a qualitative > difference between the way we do computations (and more specifically, the > way we represent knowledge) and abstracted computers do it. > I don't know about "we" but I represent the red qualia with the ?ASCII sequence? "red qualia" in the same way I represent the Pythagoras theorem ? with the ASCII sequence ?" Pythagoras theorem ?". And they both involve memory and arbitrary convention. ?> ? > Obviously, an abstracted word like ?red? does not have a redness quality > we can experience. > > ?When discussing qualia like "redness" the personal pronoun "we" should never be used unless the working assumption is made that if something, human or otherwise, behaves as if it is experiencing redness then it really is. ?> ? > All the information represented in abstracted computers is made up of the > type of abstracted knowledge that is the word red. > > ?How can knowledge of qualia or of anything else be encoded into a brain, human or otherwise, if that knowledge is not abstracted?? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 17:21:25 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 04:21:25 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hi Stathis, > > You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. > Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. > > > As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the > prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we > experience. > It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument is this: A. The brain is a system made of parts. B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the same way. D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia would change but the behaviour would not. E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. > That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical > world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and > white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, > glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness > quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be > aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world > there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily > inverted. > > > The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can > understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro > substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a > simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively > interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to > apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that > is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, > what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the > single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, > once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by > miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) > and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, > qualitatively correctly. > > > Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified > theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if you > believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds or > paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and John > Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the > ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be > approachable via objective or sharable science? > > Brent > > > > On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise >> so we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our >> misunderstanding is captured by you with this: >> >> On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to >> consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that >> if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the >> qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which >> I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. >> >> >> Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are >> saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first >> want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable >> behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even >> if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or >> removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move >> beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I >> can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first >> understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, >> this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this >> initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be >> able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of >> doing neuro substitution. >> >> Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 >> element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a >> unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative >> representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is >> binding the two different representations into one composite experience. >> The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative >> representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on >> which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could >> lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively >> the same or not. >> >> So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the >> following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of >> the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the >> functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is >> performing the function of binding these two representations of information >> together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd >> awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. >> >> You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first >> focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* >> then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of >> qualia is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of >> the functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. >> >> Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective >> way of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that >> has or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene >> that performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with >> subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with >> objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd >> part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's >> sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - >> outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge >> are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way >> it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make >> one composite qualitative experience. >> >> Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the >> glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison >> neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison >> functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate >> that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it >> be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the >> redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge >> are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet >> you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are >> different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro >> substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it >> being the source of all the "hard" problems. >> > > I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond > to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what > neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that > are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate > receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell > membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach > non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes > described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of > this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, > leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic > receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the > receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, > potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes > the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of > transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then > cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and > ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, > triggering the next neuron in the chain. > > Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - > glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to > glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have > similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels > when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard > to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles > will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. > "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that > the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries > look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't > agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of > events I have described I have missed something and explain how the > glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can > possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. > > If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in >> some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other >> abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be >> reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a >> neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison >> functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being >> compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison >> functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I >> don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically >> possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a >> binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it >> is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution >> occurs. >> >> If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring >> and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method >> of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious >> what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having >> two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one >> that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and >> the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We >> will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta >> comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the >> qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so >> you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what >> it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always >> indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other >> after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this >> *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on >> with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro >> substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable >> behavior*. >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 > > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 17:34:56 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 12:34:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <47ade2e1-ba38-c90f-1237-a031bdfed107@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ?> ? > A. The brain is a system made of parts. > B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. > C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its > neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the > same way. > D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia > would change but the behaviour would not. > E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. > ?Among other things it would mean Charles Darwin was wrong because part of a biological structure (the brain) did not come about from random mutation and natural selection. I don't think Charles Darwin was wrong. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Feb 17 20:51:48 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:51:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Raymond Smullyan In-Reply-To: References: <049201d28561$2fb579f0$8f206dd0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Max More wrote: I have to confess that The* Tao is Silent* has sit on my bookshelf for way > too many years (okay, decades), partly unread. But didn't he contribute to *The > Mind's I?* (Which I definitely read all the way through.) > Yes he did, and the Mind's I was how I was introduced to Smullyan ?, after that I read everything by Smullyan I could get my hands on.? ?> ? > 97 is ridiculously young to die, assuming he wanted to keep learning and > exploring (assuming a rejuvenated brain and restored cognitive energy.) > ?I agree 100%.? ?> ? > My other comment (based on very old and unreliable memories) is that, > although I find it hard to take Taoism and its pre-scientific speculations > especially seriously, Smullyan took it in an especially interesting > direction. Most self-advertised combinations of "Western and Eastern" > thought seem to be close to worthless. [Mention Deepak Chopra and I may > feel compelled to "school you" in the harshest way possible. :) ] Based on > my sadly-faded memories, Smullyan was surely an exception. > Even when I dis ? agreed ? ? ?I thought he was brilliant, and he was just a joy to read, his books were always fun. ?John K Clark? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 13:56:55 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:56:55 +0000 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> Message-ID: On 17 February 2017 at 00:34, spike wrote: > Eh... BillK, the question isn't about creating a device with five equal > probability outcomes. That is easy: that triangular prism device, or a > simple spinner. The question is to figure out with equations and theories > what the dimensions of such a device would be. I have three possible > answers: h = 1.41, h = 1.58 and h = 1.675 but I disagree with the reasoning > behind that last one. > Having slept on the problem (and ordered my subconscious to find the solution) I awoke to a new world! :) I still think that any die where the sides were not equal in shape and area would be very unlikely to have equal probability outcomes in all circumstances. i.e. symmetry matters. So pursuing confirmation bias, I found some mathematicians discussing this pyramid problem. Quote: Lacking symmetry this question cannot be answered purely mathematically. We need some physics: When the die is tossed against the table surface, it bounces and rotates irregularly until it comes to halt in one of finitely many states of equilibrium. The probability distribution governing this final state can be viewed as following Boltzmann statistics. --------- (I think this means the answer is really complicated). :) BillK . From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 15:06:59 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:06:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] META: Gmail security checks Message-ID: In a session at the RSA Conference here, Elie Bursztein, anti-fraud and abuse research team lead at Google, detailed the many technologies and processes that Google uses to protect users and the Gmail service itself from exploitation. --------------------- Quite an amazing range of email protection techniqes! It is probably the DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) system for signing emails that is causing gmail to flag Exi posts from Yahoo email as Spam, because the Exi list server edits the email and breaks the DKIM signature. As Yahoo email has had weak security and been hacked several times it is probably time Yahoo users got a new email account. "Yahoo has discovered a 3-year-old security breach that enabled a hacker to compromise more than 1 billion user accounts, breaking the company?s own humiliating record for the biggest security breach in history". BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 15:44:10 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:44:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Discovery Suggests All Complex Life Came From Archaea Message-ID: February 16, 2017 - 06:15 Scientists have discovered what could be our closest living relative among the microbes, casting new light on the origins of our species. Quote: Life on Earth started at least 3.8 billion years ago, and nobody knows how it started or why. But we do know that all life on Earth originated from a single original cell. Scientists thought that this cell eventually divided into three main domains: two simple, small life forms called bacteria and archaea, and one higher, more complex form, called eukaryotes. But a new picture has emerged in recent decades that eukaryotes did not originate as an independent line from the shared ancestor, but by a combination of two cells from archaea and bacteria. The leading scenario is that the two microbes evolved in such a way that they became increasingly dependent on each other, eventually combining in a complete symbiosis, as the archaeon took up the bacterium. By comparing the genetic material from many different organisms, the scientists can see how the Asgard-group fit into the five or six major groups of archaea. Excitingly, eukaryotes follow a line of descent from the Asgard group. >From blue whale to yeast, and to humans, we are all basically Asgard archaea, which originated about two billion years ago. ?One could say that all we are is Asgard archaea with a mitochondrial booster,? says Ettema. ------------- BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 18 16:05:24 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:05:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cool space x is going to launch this morning Message-ID: <009001d28a00$d09ed930$71dc8b90$@att.net> Go now! http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html?utm_s ource=notification spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 18 16:21:20 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:21:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cool space x is going to launch this morning In-Reply-To: <009001d28a00$d09ed930$71dc8b90$@att.net> References: <009001d28a00$d09ed930$71dc8b90$@att.net> Message-ID: <009d01d28a03$0af159d0$20d40d70$@att.net> Never mind, scrubbed for 24 hrs because of bad telemetry from the second stage thrust vector control module. spike From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 8:05 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] cool space x is going to launch this morning Go now! http://www.space.com/17933-nasa-television-webcasts-live-space-tv.html?utm_s ource=notification spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 18 16:27:19 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 08:27:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> Message-ID: <00b701d28a03$e0ddc150$a29943f0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:57 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On 17 February 2017 at 00:34, spike wrote: >>... answers: h = 1.41, h = 1.58 and h = 1.675 but I disagree with the reasoning behind that last one... spike > >...Having slept on the problem (and ordered my subconscious to find the solution) I awoke to a new world! :) Nah, We changed the code while you were sleeping. The joke's on you, mate. We Old Ones are bastards that way. >...I still think that any die where the sides were not equal in shape and area would be very unlikely to have equal probability outcomes in all circumstances. i.e. symmetry matters... Oh I hope you are right sir. If you are, then we can use these things as specialty measurement devices. Follow my reasoning? We just need to figure out what it is we are measuring. >...So pursuing confirmation bias, I found some mathematicians discussing this pyramid problem. >... >...Quote: Lacking symmetry this question cannot be answered purely mathematically. We need some physics: When the die is tossed against the table surface, it bounces and rotates irregularly until it comes to halt in one of finitely many states of equilibrium. The probability distribution governing this final state can be viewed as following Boltzmann statistics. --------- >...(I think this means the answer is really complicated). :) ...BillK _______________________________________________ BillK, this is really cool stuff, me lad! Consider this notion: suppose we want to measure the electrical charge on a flat horizontal surface at a distance. We make a bunch of these pyramids with h = 1.58, or 1.675 if my buddy with the 3D printer is right, or 1.618 if Mike Dougherty is right, h = 1 if Adrian is right, h = 1.414 if this universe is a cruel sim, and if we are all wrong, we are just a bunch of AIs with the I part being a bit questionable. If the electron affinity of the surface is exactly the same as the material we used for our pyramids and we dump a bucket of them, then the electrical charge of the surface and the pyramids will be equal and gravity alone will drive. The light scatter should be about consistent with 20% of our pyramids in the square down configuration (ja?) But if the surface has a lower electron affinity, such as a metal, then some of the charge could transfer up, then a slight electromagnetic attraction could cause the pyramids to slightly prefer a larger contact area such as with square base down. Or if we had a slightly higher electron affinity perhaps it would prefer the triangle side down. Seems there should be something we could do with that whole notion, ja? If electromagnetic forces are zero, then we are seeing who guessed right from the above choices, but if that force is in play, electromagnetism is way bigger than gravity once it cops an attitude. We could rig a gambling game by controlling the electrical charge or magnetic field on the table. Hey wait a minute, we can't be the first ones to think of this. BillK, think hard sir, Mike, Adrian, the rest of you smart guys THINK now! If we demonstrate a material dependence or a scale dependence, what have we shown and what can we do with it? spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 21:26:28 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 16:26:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <00b701d28a03$e0ddc150$a29943f0$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> <00b701d28a03$e0ddc150$a29943f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2017 11:42 AM, "spike" wrote: BillK, think hard sir, Mike, Adrian, the rest of you smart guys THINK now! If we demonstrate a material dependence or a scale dependence, what have we shown and what can we do with it? Have we considered aero/fluid dynamics if these nanoGizrs (from pyramids at Giza, pronounced nano-geezers?) can be magnetically oriented? If we build them from a piezo electric crystals, we might be able to generate charge via stress or apply charge to actuate a bundle of sheets? Would these have any application in your M-Brain scenario? How does the pyramid shape affect heat absorb/dissapate? Or, back to the signaling application you originally mentioned. Idk, i like the brainstorming part but i don't have sufficient chemistry/physics/engineering knowledge to know if it's all nonsense or if there might be a few grains of gold in a pile of rocks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 21:46:28 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 21:46:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Discovery Suggests All Complex Life Came From Archaea In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58A8C0B4.3070002@yahoo.com> BillK wrote: > Scientists have discovered what could be our closest living relative among the microbes, casting new light on the origins of our species. > Quote: > Life on Earth started at least 3.8 billion years ago, and nobody knows how it started or why. But we do know that all life on Earth originated from a single original cell. I've had this discussion before, and am not convinced that all life on earth had to originate from a single cell. In fact it seems highly unlikely. It seems much more likely to me that all life originated from a /population/ of similar cells. This is how evolution works, variation in a population, some members are more successful than others at reproducing, some are not successful at all. It doesn't tend to happen that only a single individual is the least bit successful at reproducing, and all the others die. I don't see why this wouldn't be just as true 3.8 bn years ago as it is today. Does anyone have a convincing counter-argument? Ben Zaiboc From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 22:17:06 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 22:17:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Discovery Suggests All Complex Life Came From Archaea In-Reply-To: <58A8C0B4.3070002@yahoo.com> References: <58A8C0B4.3070002@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 18 February 2017 at 21:46, Ben wrote: > I've had this discussion before, and am not convinced that all life on earth > had to originate from a single cell. In fact it seems highly unlikely. > > It seems much more likely to me that all life originated from a /population/ > of similar cells. This is how evolution works, variation in a population, > some members are more successful than others at reproducing, some are not > successful at all. > > It doesn't tend to happen that only a single individual is the least bit > successful at reproducing, and all the others die. I don't see why this > wouldn't be just as true 3.8 bn years ago as it is today. > > Does anyone have a convincing counter-argument? > Yes. Every earth species uses the same DNA proteins. Multiple origins are far more unlikely than everything coming from one origin. Quote: Common biochemistry and genetic code All known forms of life are based on the same fundamental biochemical organization: genetic information encoded in DNA, transcribed into RNA, through the effect of protein- and RNA-enzymes, then translated into proteins by (highly similar) ribosomes, with ATP, NADPH and others as energy sources, etc. Furthermore, the genetic code (the "translation table" according to which DNA information is translated into proteins) is nearly identical for all known lifeforms, from bacteria and archaea to animals and plants. The universality of this code is generally regarded by biologists as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent. Analysis of the small differences in the genetic code has also provided support for universal common descent. An example would be Cytochrome c which most organisms actually share. A statistical comparison of various alternative hypotheses has shown that universal common ancestry is significantly more probable than models involving multiple origins. ---------- BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 18 22:10:21 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:10:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again Message-ID: <01b501d28a33$ccb49e80$661ddb80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 1:26 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On Feb 18, 2017 11:42 AM, "spike" < spike66 at att.net> wrote: BillK, think hard sir, Mike, Adrian, the rest of you smart guys THINK now! If we demonstrate a material dependence or a scale dependence, what have we shown and what can we do with it? >.Have we considered aero/fluid dynamics if these nanoGizrs (from pyramids at Giza, pronounced nano-geezers?). Heeeeeheheheheheheheeee, nanoGizrs, please sir may we use that as the standard name? We will say nice things about you if anyone wants to trace the etymology. Good thinking, fluid dynamics. We could make them with only slight negative buoyancy, then stir the water, see how they settle. >. can be magnetically oriented? Good thinking, magnetic orientation, don't know how the heck to deal with that, but in both those examples and the one I already discovered this morning from your scale-dependence you (or somebody) made, once we start considering those, we have square-cube dependencies all over the place. I realized one of those scale-dependencies had to do with the radius of the vertices. >.If we build them from a piezo electric crystals, we might be able to generate charge via stress or apply charge to actuate a bundle of sheets?... I may misunderstand how piezo crystals work, but I don't think you can make arbitrary angles with them. They are directional by their nature, and only work in two orthogonal axes, with the third axis producing the excess charge but only if it is free-free in that direction. Have we piezo hipsters among us? >.Would these have any application in your M-Brain scenario?... Oy vey, I am stumped by some aspects of M-Brains. I think I went waaaay wrong on that whole thing some time ago and I don't really know what to do: I've fallen and I can't get up. >.How does the pyramid shape affect heat absorb/dissipate? If we had M-Brain nodes shaped like pyramids with the square base faced towards the star, we have more area to radiate heat out into cold space, but if the square base faces away, we have more area to collect sunlight and less to radiate. The factor causing me to fall and not get up: I did (what I think is) a first-principles calculation on M-Brains that demonstrate energy must be reflected in a low-entropy state absolutely reeeeegaaaaardless of how efficient this or that or the other, regardless of what you are doing with the energy: you must throw some of it away unused or eventually we cook in our own stew. If we extract energy, we create entropy which makes it more difficult to get rid of the waste heat. The real problem is that I am not an expert on entropy, even after all these years on the EXtropy list, I still don't trust myself on that topic. we need a REAL entropy hipster to come along and get me up. >.Or, back to the signaling application you originally mentioned. Idk, i like the brainstorming part but i don't have sufficient chemistry/physics/engineering knowledge to know if it's all nonsense or if there might be a few grains of gold in a pile of rocks. Eh, toss em out here if you wish. My philosophy is that if an idea is bad, no one will ever hear of it again. If an idea is good, someone will eventually trace it back to you and you will be at least famous (but not rich.) Some ideas might make someone else rich, such as Hal Finney with Bitcoin. I am going to claim that whole notion of BitCoin was born right here on ExI-Chat in about 1996, but I don't mind one nanoparticle if our own gone but never forgotten Hal Finney was the one who took the ball and ran with it. That didn't cost me anything: I don't have the computer hipsterity to have done anything with it anyway. Good for Hal's family. I met his now wealthy widowed bride once a long time ago; she seems like such a nice lady. Regarding that M-Brain entropy notion, sooner or later, some really smart grad student might get a PhD thesis out of proving the lower limit of entropy any M-Brain must throw away in order to stay in thermal equilibrium. That person might be my own son, or someone might figure it out before he is at that level of sophistication. NanoGizrs: you are right on: it is scale-dependent, and several other things dependent. Figuring out the theoretical h is a Sisyphean task, but a fun one. And hey, if we get an explanation for the Big Bang out of the deal, what's not to like? Mike were you the one who proposed phi? Want to stay with that answer? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Feb 18 22:46:59 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 22:46:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58A8CEE3.9050004@yahoo.com> Brent Allsop wrote, in various responses: > in summary, a "red" property is something that reflects 650 NM light, and a "redness" quality is a quality of our knowledge of such. For all we know, my redness could be more like your greenness - both of which we only say represents the same "red". > Would you agree with that, and does that help? Yes, and No. I agree, but it doesn't help. As various other people keep pointing out, a difference that makes no difference is not actually a difference at all. You are not addressing my assertion that there is no such thing as 'plain and simple redness', that can somehow exist separate from memories and perception. 'Redness' /is/ a perception. It makes no sense to take it away and still have it exist. I will ask again: Can you show that 'redness' exists outside a human mind? You claim that it's a fundamental thing, so it can't be dependent on, or composed of, something else. Please show us what it is, if not patterns of information in a mind. > for Ben's sake: in this simplified world there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily inverted. Then this simplified world is so far away from reality as to be useless. You can't just wave away the way something actually works in order to present a 'simplified version' of how it works. That's just making things up. We look at complex systems and extract simplified models so that we can cope with thinking about them, and make testable predictions. No matter how simplified they are, though, they still have to be /based on reality/. If not, they're worse than useless, they're misleading and a total waste of time. Disregarding the fact that there are no inherent red and green signals in the optic nerve is not a simplification, it's a falsification. Here is my (very) simplified version of sensory processing of a 'red' object: A red ball causes receptors in the retina to produce three types of spatially-mapped signals in the optic nerve (red-green, luminance and blue-yellow, according to colour-opponency theory) that are sent (mainly) to specific locations in the thalamus, which routes them to a set of different visual maps in the cortex. (note that these signals have no intrinsic meaning on their own. Their meaning is determined by their origin and destination. 'Line Labelling'). What we know as the concepts 'colour', 'shape', 'brightness', 'size', 'location', etc., are created by a complex set of cross-associations between these and other sensory maps, combined with previously-stored memories and modified by the specific architecture of the individual's brain. Only at this point, after literally thousands of neuronal events, does the concept of 'big red ball right in front of me' come into being. Up to then, something like 'redness' simply does not exist, any more than Keanu Reeves' nose exists at any point between a movie camera and your television screen. In fact, less so, due to the positional coding used in the visual nervous sytem. At all the intermediate points, between the rods and cones of the eyes and the conscious perception, all that exists is a set of spike-trains in a bunch of axons, setting off another bunch of spike trains (by what means is irrelevant), in a great big network. They represent all kinds of things, but the only differences between them is the timing of the spikes, where they come from and where they are going. There is no redness, greenness, bigness, leftness, roundness, etc., etc., in any of the individual signals. This is what the science tells us. This is what we have to work with when coming up with philosophical theories of how we perceive things. It's a bit like numbers. There is no "Pi quality" in the number 2, is there? Neither is there any 'redness quality' in |||||| ||| |||| (that's supposed to be a simplified representation of a spike-train. Not a real one). The key point, I think, is that perception, despite how it appears to us, is not a passive process of transmitting existing signals (or 'properties') to an internal observer, but a dynamic process of creation. We don't so much see the red ball as create it in our minds. It's that very process of creation that we call 'conscious perception'. And this explains a ton of perceptual illusions, like for instance seeing a giant monster on the horizon for a second, before adjusting our experience to our memories, and seeing a tiny spider on the window. Or feeling the non-existent backwards motion of your car in stationary traffic for a second, when the cars next to you start moving forwards. For that second, the false backwards motion is as real to you as anything else. You may even move forward in reaction to the backward movement of the car. Then your mind updates itself, and your reality changes. So, there is no 'essence of red' which winds its way from your eyes to your conscious experience. Instead, the experience of a red thing is the endpoint of a complex series of events, none of which can be said to be 'red' in any meaningful and consistent way. The Taj Mahal is made from bricks, but not a single brick has the least bit 'Taj Mahal quality' about it. They're all just ordinary bricks. When you stare at a cyan square for about 30 seconds, then look at a blank white area, what do you see? Why? Do you understand that that experience is 'conjured up' by our visual system? How could that be the result of an 'elemental red quality'? > But it may not help if you believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds or paints composite qualitative experiences with Belief has nothing to do with it. There is simply no support for the idea of sensory experiences being 'elemental qualities', and no need for it. It's sheer fantasy. Our brains build experiences by processing and combining information from many different cortical and sub-cortical regions, in the form of patterns of action potentials travelling down millions of interconnected axons. These patterns of information have meaning in relation to our interactions with our internal and external environments. Here's another argument against the concept of 'elemental redness': If redness is elemental, what about purpleness? Bluey-greyness? yellowish-brownness? How many colours can we percieve? Can they all be 'elemental'? And what about all the other things we are capable of perceiving? Does it really make sense that you can call something that there must be potentially more of than there are particles in the universe, 'elemental'? Things just don't work that way. Enormous numbers of different things are built up from smaller numbers of simpler things. There's no reason why our perceptions shouldn't be the same. > Obviously, an abstracted word like 'red' does not have a redness quality we can experience. What? are you saying that the word "red" can't trigger the production of the experience of redness? I don't know about you, but I can produce that experience whenever I want, including on hearing the words "red", "scarlet", and many more. In fact words like "postbox", "Matador's cape", "sunset", and so-on can do it. If you're saying something as obvious as "the word red is not red", I don't know why that's worth saying. The word Buffalo is not a Buffalo, we all know that. It's just as true that 650nm light is not a particular set of action potentials in a particular set of neurons, nor is it the RGB colour code #FF0000. The qualitative difference in how knowledge (or any information) is represented is irrelevant. I really don't care if my copy of Beethoven's 9th symphony is on a CD or a .wav file or grooves in a plastic disc, it's the same symphony. A book with references to 'red' can have all those words replaced with a little red square, and the book still has the same meaning (as long as the reader has colour vision). So I don't actually think that it matters whether an information-processing system represents red as #FF0000 in a register or as a specific set of voltages on a specific set of wires, or a certain pattern of neural spike trains in a certain set of axons, it can all mean the same thing. What matters is how those representations relate to the system as a whole, not what form they take. Ben Zaiboc From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 23:43:38 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 18:43:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Discovery Suggests All Complex Life Came From Archaea In-Reply-To: References: <58A8C0B4.3070002@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 5:17 PM, BillK wrote: Yes. Every earth species uses the same DNA proteins. Multiple origins > are far more unlikely than everything coming from one origin. > ?The evidence strongly ?indicates that everything alive today are decedents of just one organism, LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor) that lived between 3.5 and 3.8 billion years ago. But that doesn't mean that LUCA was the first living thing, in fact it almost certainly was not; it's just that lines of decedent other than LUCA's ended up going extinct. Perhaps LUCA had some beneficial mutation, or more likely LUCA just got lucky. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 18 23:56:42 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 23:56:42 +0000 Subject: [ExI] META: Gmail security checks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 18 February 2017 at 15:06, BillK wrote: > It is probably the DKIM (DomainKeys Identified Mail) system for > signing emails that is causing gmail to flag Exi posts from Yahoo > email as Spam, because the Exi list server edits the email and breaks > the DKIM signature. > As Mike suggested all Exi gmail users should set up a filter to fix this problem. Includes the words list:"extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org" Do this Skip Inbox, Apply label 'Exi', Never send to Spam folder. This filter would also correct any other email servers, such as Protonmail, that gmail thinks might be spam because its security checks failed. With this filter active, gmail won't send Exi posts to Spam, but it does issue a warning that it might be Spam, which can be ignored. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 18 23:58:03 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 15:58:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <00b701d28a03$e0ddc150$a29943f0$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> <00b701d28a03$e0ddc150$a29943f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <007201d28a42$d82b0ba0$888122e0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [ mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 5:57 AM To: ExI chat list < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> Subject: Re: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again On 17 February 2017 at 00:34, spike wrote: >>... answers: h = 1.41, h = 1.58 and h = 1.675 but I disagree with the reasoning behind that last one... spike OK cool, my buddy for most of our lives is coming to visit and he has a skill I really need. How often does it happen: no one is sick, injured or unhappy with the configuration of his or her genitals, but one needs a surgeon's professional skills, then he makes a timely house call? I went to the local Dollar Tree and procured a number of polymer foam-rubber toys to carve into NanoGizrs (pen shown for scale.) We will be carving right after dinner, so a couple hours from now. If anyone has a speculation on what size to make h, do post forthwith por favor. I will check my inbox before we cut into any of the "patients." spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18203 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 00:23:48 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 00:23:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <007201d28a42$d82b0ba0$888122e0$@att.net> References: <00cb01d2881d$83752f90$8a5f8eb0$@att.net> <020a01d2887b$0a0a0730$1e1e1590$@att.net> <028401d28888$d11e9d60$735bd820$@att.net> <01b501d288ae$62dca4c0$2895ee40$@att.net> <01d601d288b5$8f1dd200$ad597600$@att.net> <00b701d28a03$e0ddc150$a29943f0$@att.net> <007201d28a42$d82b0ba0$888122e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 18 February 2017 at 23:58, spike wrote: > I went to the local Dollar Tree and procured a number of polymer foam-rubber > toys to carve into NanoGizrs (pen shown for scale.) We will be carving > right after dinner, so a couple hours from now. If anyone has a speculation > on what size to make h, do post forthwith por favor. I will check my inbox > before we cut into any of the ?patients.? > My bet is that you would be better to keep them whole for throwing around your office to annoy the cat. :) Because the NanoGizrs are not symmetrical their behaviour will be erratic (within limits). So you probably will not be able to get useful results from the various height models. BillK From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 00:48:27 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 17:48:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <58A8CEE3.9050004@yahoo.com> References: <58A8CEE3.9050004@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7f0bc6f5-1b1d-9071-4248-56bcbb4c1e71@gmail.com> Yay, I got this in my in box, with a message from gmail saying: "This message was not added to your spam folder because of a rule you created." Thanks, everyone, for helping me to resolve this problem. Hi Ben, Thanks for telling me more about the way you think about things. That will make communication much easier. I think it is true that "If you know something, there must be something that is that knowledge." Would you agree? For example, you pointed out that you can produce an after image experience by starring at cyan for a while and then quickly looking at white. I think it is very telling about what you are ignoring in this example, in that you didn't actually say the result was a redness experience. You say it is: " 'conjured up' by our visual system." But I ask you, what is it, that is conjured up? Is it not knowledge that has a redness quality which you can experience as the final result of the processing of your visual system? Brent Allsop On 2/18/2017 3:46 PM, Ben wrote: > Brent Allsop wrote, in various responses: > > > in summary, a "red" property is something that reflects 650 NM > light, and a "redness" quality is a quality of our knowledge of such. > For all we know, my redness could be more like your greenness - both > of which we only say represents the same "red". > > > Would you agree with that, and does that help? > > Yes, and No. > > I agree, but it doesn't help. As various other people keep pointing > out, a difference that makes no difference is not actually a > difference at all. > > You are not addressing my assertion that there is no such thing as > 'plain and simple redness', that can somehow exist separate from > memories and perception. 'Redness' /is/ a perception. It makes no > sense to take it away and still have it exist. > > I will ask again: Can you show that 'redness' exists outside a human > mind? You claim that it's a fundamental thing, so it can't be > dependent on, or composed of, something else. Please show us what it > is, if not patterns of information in a mind. > > > > > for Ben's sake: in this simplified world there are "red and green > signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily inverted. > > Then this simplified world is so far away from reality as to be > useless. You can't just wave away the way something actually works in > order to present a 'simplified version' of how it works. That's just > making things up. > > We look at complex systems and extract simplified models so that we > can cope with thinking about them, and make testable predictions. No > matter how simplified they are, though, they still have to be /based > on reality/. If not, they're worse than useless, they're misleading > and a total waste of time. > > Disregarding the fact that there are no inherent red and green signals > in the optic nerve is not a simplification, it's a falsification. > > Here is my (very) simplified version of sensory processing of a 'red' > object: > > A red ball causes receptors in the retina to produce three types of > spatially-mapped signals in the optic nerve (red-green, luminance and > blue-yellow, according to colour-opponency theory) that are sent > (mainly) to specific locations in the thalamus, which routes them to a > set of different visual maps in the cortex. (note that these signals > have no intrinsic meaning on their own. Their meaning is determined by > their origin and destination. 'Line Labelling'). > > What we know as the concepts 'colour', 'shape', 'brightness', 'size', > 'location', etc., are created by a complex set of cross-associations > between these and other sensory maps, combined with previously-stored > memories and modified by the specific architecture of the individual's > brain. Only at this point, after literally thousands of neuronal > events, does the concept of 'big red ball right in front of me' come > into being. Up to then, something like 'redness' simply does not > exist, any more than Keanu Reeves' nose exists at any point between a > movie camera and your television screen. In fact, less so, due to the > positional coding used in the visual nervous sytem. > > At all the intermediate points, between the rods and cones of the eyes > and the conscious perception, all that exists is a set of spike-trains > in a bunch of axons, setting off another bunch of spike trains (by > what means is irrelevant), in a great big network. They represent all > kinds of things, but the only differences between them is the timing > of the spikes, where they come from and where they are going. There is > no redness, greenness, bigness, leftness, roundness, etc., etc., in > any of the individual signals. This is what the science tells us. This > is what we have to work with when coming up with philosophical > theories of how we perceive things. > > It's a bit like numbers. There is no "Pi quality" in the number 2, is > there? Neither is there any 'redness quality' in |||||| ||| |||| > (that's supposed to be a simplified representation of a spike-train. > Not a real one). > > > The key point, I think, is that perception, despite how it appears to > us, is not a passive process of transmitting existing signals (or > 'properties') to an internal observer, but a dynamic process of > creation. We don't so much see the red ball as create it in our minds. > It's that very process of creation that we call 'conscious > perception'. And this explains a ton of perceptual illusions, like for > instance seeing a giant monster on the horizon for a second, before > adjusting our experience to our memories, and seeing a tiny spider on > the window. Or feeling the non-existent backwards motion of your car > in stationary traffic for a second, when the cars next to you start > moving forwards. For that second, the false backwards motion is as > real to you as anything else. You may even move forward in reaction to > the backward movement of the car. Then your mind updates itself, and > your reality changes. > > So, there is no 'essence of red' which winds its way from your eyes to > your conscious experience. Instead, the experience of a red thing is > the endpoint of a complex series of events, none of which can be said > to be 'red' in any meaningful and consistent way. The Taj Mahal is > made from bricks, but not a single brick has the least bit 'Taj Mahal > quality' about it. They're all just ordinary bricks. > > When you stare at a cyan square for about 30 seconds, then look at a > blank white area, what do you see? Why? Do you understand that that > experience is 'conjured up' by our visual system? How could that be > the result of an 'elemental red quality'? > > > > > But it may not help if you believe there are not elemental qualities > out of which our brain builds or paints composite qualitative > experiences with > > Belief has nothing to do with it. There is simply no support for the > idea of sensory experiences being 'elemental qualities', and no need > for it. It's sheer fantasy. Our brains build experiences by processing > and combining information from many different cortical and > sub-cortical regions, in the form of patterns of action potentials > travelling down millions of interconnected axons. These patterns of > information have meaning in relation to our interactions with our > internal and external environments. > > Here's another argument against the concept of 'elemental redness': If > redness is elemental, what about purpleness? Bluey-greyness? > yellowish-brownness? How many colours can we percieve? Can they all be > 'elemental'? And what about all the other things we are capable of > perceiving? Does it really make sense that you can call something that > there must be potentially more of than there are particles in the > universe, 'elemental'? Things just don't work that way. Enormous > numbers of different things are built up from smaller numbers of > simpler things. There's no reason why our perceptions shouldn't be the > same. > > > > > Obviously, an abstracted word like 'red' does not have a redness > quality we can experience. > > What? are you saying that the word "red" can't trigger the production > of the experience of redness? I don't know about you, but I can > produce that experience whenever I want, including on hearing the > words "red", "scarlet", and many more. In fact words like "postbox", > "Matador's cape", "sunset", and so-on can do it. > > If you're saying something as obvious as "the word red is not red", I > don't know why that's worth saying. The word Buffalo is not a Buffalo, > we all know that. It's just as true that 650nm light is not a > particular set of action potentials in a particular set of neurons, > nor is it the RGB colour code #FF0000. > > The qualitative difference in how knowledge (or any information) is > represented is irrelevant. I really don't care if my copy of > Beethoven's 9th symphony is on a CD or a .wav file or grooves in a > plastic disc, it's the same symphony. A book with references to 'red' > can have all those words replaced with a little red square, and the > book still has the same meaning (as long as the reader has colour > vision). So I don't actually think that it matters whether an > information-processing system represents red as #FF0000 in a register > or as a specific set of voltages on a specific set of wires, or a > certain pattern of neural spike trains in a certain set of axons, it > can all mean the same thing. What matters is how those representations > relate to the system as a whole, not what form they take. > > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sun Feb 19 10:46:05 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:46:05 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Discovery Suggests All Complex Life Came From In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58A9776D.3080004@yahoo.com> Me: > ... not convinced that all life on earth had to originate from a single cell, but from a /population/ of similar cells. ... Does anyone have a convincing counter-argument? BillK: > Yes. Every earth species uses the same DNA proteins. Multiple origins are far more unlikely than everything coming from one origin. John Clark: > The evidence strongly indicates that everything alive today is descended from just one organism, LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor) that lived between 3.5 and 3.8 billion years ago. But that doesn't mean that LUCA was the first living thing, in fact it almost certainly was not; it's just that lines of descent other than LUCA's ended up going extinct. Perhaps LUCA had some beneficial mutation, or more likely LUCA just got lucky. I'm not arguing against LUCA, not at all, and I agree with what BillK and John Clark say. Instead, I'm arguing against the idea that LUCA had to be a /single individual cell/. I'm saying that it could well have been a single /type/ of cell, with more than one individual. And that this seems more likely. It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that a set of randomly-generated protocells had the same set of molecules for storing information, and the differences between them were negligible. This pool of protocells would be LUCA. If you have a set of circumstances that generate a variety of mechanisms, how likely is it that there will only be one single instance of any one mechanism? It's impossible to say, I know, without knowing how big the environment is that produces those circumstances, and what the circumstances actually are. How many protocells existed, 3.8 bn years ago? We have no idea. It may have been half-a-dozen, or it might have been trillions. I'd imagine that a few billion might be a reasonable guess, though. As an analogy, suppose there are half a million valid english words, and a single one of them represents LUCA. If you randomly generate, say, 2 million valid english words, what's the probability that the LUCA word will only crop up once? Without knowing just how many protocells were being generated, and the exact constraints of the chemistry, we'll probably never know the answer, I'm just saying it doesn't /have to be/ a single, solitary cell, and it seems unlikely that it would have been. Ben Zaiboc From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 19 17:56:52 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:56:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] musk stick a landing Message-ID: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> Woohoo! Way to go, SpaceX! http://www.space.com/35760-spacex-rocket-launch-landing-success-nasa-pad.htm l?utm_source=notification#ooid=ZlNW91OTE6BGFRSgBu34HjBvEjvf7PzY ooooh this is cool. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 19:09:21 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:09:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Thanks. Did not know you were a comic critic (pun intended). But the real > idea was for you all to create examples so I could be a critic. Sorry. ^_^; I've been aware of the mechanics of puns and comedy for several years now, employing them regularly in a type of improv (RPGs). I'd give the academic lecture, but it might just leave you comictose. But seriously, both of your examples involved explaining the joke without waiting to see if the audience needed it, and that tends to be anti-humor. At this point I almost can't get myself to write in that style: doing it practices writing a way that is the opposite of what most of my writing is for. Since I couldn't do it, I fell back to explaining why not. But if you want examples in addition to, "That guy went on such a diet, he went from a portly body to a starboardly!": "There there, they're their heirs." (And any number of references to child care as "heir-raising adventures".) "When you replaced your car's flats, did you retire the old tires?" "We want to encourage our kids toward the sciences. We named the future botanist Leif, the future astrophysicist Star, and the future aerospace engineer Skye, all on the advice of our friend, Norman Klature." From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 19 18:56:13 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 10:56:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again Message-ID: <006601d28ae1$d8561300$89023900$@att.net> I repent! Now I think h is not (5/2)^0.5 = 1.58. Now I think h = 2^.5 = 1.41 is the correct root. When I calculated it, ended up with a quadratic equation. Now I realize only the square root 2 root makes sense. My nanoGeezer is still in progress: After my first cut, shooting for h = 1.58: My surgeon friend was a mechanical engineering major at the college we attended. He did some calcs and somehow convinced himself that h=2 is the right answer. It isn't but I wouldn't argue with him because he is about an order of magnitude smarter than I am. He ended up with this: Five grown men tossing a foam rubber nanoGeezer was quite the spectacle, but fortunately none of our brides recorded the event for preposterity, so there is no video evidence of the event. In our world, if it ain't on YouTube, it never happened. I am now convinced this higher-density foam rubber won't work, but I have another idea. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6643 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6491 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11115 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8180 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 19 19:59:50 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:59:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00d101d28aea$baf56370$30e02a50$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 11:09 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] AI humor On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:46 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> Thanks. Did not know you were a comic critic (pun intended). But the > real idea was for you all to create examples so I could be a critic. BillW >...Sorry. ^_^; I've been aware of the mechanics of puns and comedy for several years now, employing them regularly in a type of improv (RPGs). I'd give the academic lecture, but it might just leave you comictose.... "We want to encourage our kids toward the sciences. We named the future botanist Leif, the future astrophysicist Star, and the future aerospace engineer Skye, all on the advice of our friend, Norman Klature." Adrian _______________________________________________ Wordplay is big fun, but even bigger is niche humor. I was at a gathering of friends last night. Nearly everyone there is science/technical sorts, ladies included. So while we were carving nanoGeezers, I googled up Wolfram Alpha and asked for a physics joke, being as our surgeon guest took his undergrad degrees double major in physics and engineering. It gave me this: ... two neutrinos went through a bar... We laughed at that silly joke like a bunch of stoners, but there was zero drugs or alcohol at that party. Why? It was one of those insider things, hard to explain. After I told it, the thought occurred to me that this might be the shortest joke known, six words. Then today Adrian uncorks: There there, they're their heirs. This is sorta five and a half words. Conclusion: humor is weird. The neutrino bar joke might be the shortest known non-wordplay gag. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 22:23:06 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 22:23:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: <00d101d28aea$baf56370$30e02a50$@att.net> References: <00d101d28aea$baf56370$30e02a50$@att.net> Message-ID: On 19 February 2017 at 19:59, spike wrote: > > Wordplay is big fun, but even bigger is niche humor. I was at a gathering > of friends last night. Nearly everyone there is science/technical sorts, > ladies included. So while we were carving nanoGeezers, I googled up Wolfram > Alpha and asked for a physics joke, being as our surgeon guest took his > undergrad degrees double major in physics and engineering. It gave me this: > > ... two neutrinos went through a bar... > > We laughed at that silly joke like a bunch of stoners, but there was zero > drugs or alcohol at that party. Why? It was one of those insider things, > hard to explain. After I told it, the thought occurred to me that this > might be the shortest joke known, six words. Then today Adrian uncorks: > There there, they're their heirs. This is sorta five and a half words. > > Conclusion: humor is weird. The neutrino bar joke might be the shortest > known non-wordplay gag. > One of my all-time favourite cartoons that always makes me smile is the scientist standing in front of a huge blackboard covered in diagrams and complex formulae. Near the bottom of the diagram is a box containing the words "Here magic happens". BillK From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 22:41:52 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:41:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <268bcebe-52e3-04ea-ec68-8b639d9e4b26@gmail.com> Hi Stathis. Dang, not quite communicating yet. You keep saying this over and over again. I, also, over and over again in reply, try to describe the many problems that I see with this. Thanks to all your help, I'm hopefully getting better each time. But you never provide any evidence that you are trying to understand the problems I'm trying to describe. All you seem to do is repeat over and over again with your overly simplistic system that A: the brain is a system made of parts, that B: each part interacts with neighboring parts, and finally C: if you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its neighbors in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the same way. In addition to all the "hard" (as in impossible) problems that result with your insufficient swapping steps, there is this: I know I (there I didn't say "we", are you happy John?) can be conscious of 1: redness and 2: greenness at the same time, as a composite experience. And 3: using this composite awareness of each of these qualitatively different functionalities express that they are different. With the system that you describe, and the simplistic way you do the do the neural substitution on "parts" with minimal interactions with their neighbors, it isn't possible to do the 3 above described functionalities without completely ignoring them. You must do a substitution on some kind of system that has a reasonable chance of modeling the 3 mentioned functionalities adequately to be able to make any kind of claim that you know what is going on, phenomenally, with the neural substitution. Plain and simple, your system is completely qualia blind, like all the experimental neuro science being done today that I know of. If you do a neuro substitution on any system which does have sufficient detail to at least model these 3 necessary functions (my simplified glutamate theory for example), there will be no "hard problems", and everything we subjectively know about how we can be aware of diverse composite qualitative experiences, will be sufficiently modeled. We will be able to understand why the simplistic neural substitution of your system is qualia blind and leads some to think there are "hard problems". We will be able to say we understand how these composite subjective experiences work and why, both subjectively and objectively, as the neuro substitution progresses. Brent On 2/17/2017 10:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > > Hi Stathis, > > You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters > work. Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. > > > As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the > prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we > experience. > > It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is > necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general > argument is this: > > A. The brain is a system made of parts. > B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. > C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with > its neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave > in the same way. > D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia > would change but the behaviour would not. > E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. > > Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be > detected - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or > physics. > > That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified > theoretical world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 > colors: red, green and white. And in that simplified world, > glutamate has the redness quality, glycene has the greenness > quality, aspartate that has the whiteness quality, and it is one > neuron that binds them all together, so you can be aware of them > all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world there > are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily > inverted. > > > The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If > one can understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, > and how neuro substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how > people in such a simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by > properly qualitatively interpreting abstracted observation > knowledge - then they should be able to apply the same qualitative > theory in the more complex real world. All that is required is to > test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, what it is > that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the > single neuron binding system. That job is for the > experimentalists to do, once they understand how to test for it by > no longer being qualia blind (by miss interpreting abstracted > observation information as they all do now) and effing the > ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, qualitatively > correctly. > > > Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified > theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 > . But it may not > help if you believe there are not elemental qualities out of which > our brain builds or paints composite qualitative experiences > with. It sounds like you and John Clark agree on this? Do you > also, like John, believe that effing the ineffable is impossible, > and thereby, qualia will forever not be approachable via objective > or sharable science? > > > Brent > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 22:51:28 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 17:51:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: <01b501d28a33$ccb49e80$661ddb80$@att.net> References: <01b501d28a33$ccb49e80$661ddb80$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 18, 2017 5:26 PM, "spike" wrote: Heeeeeheheheheheheheeee, nanoGizrs, please sir may we use that as the standard name? We will say nice things about you if anyone wants to trace the etymology. Glad it seems to have already stuck :) Mike were you the one who proposed phi? Want to stay with that answer? Yeah, it was a hopeful guess. Now I'm guessing it's a magic ratio in some other part of this equation. Ex: the surface area of square side to triangular side - for reasons similar to how only the surface area of a sphere is relevant to the information to describe the volume. While walking the dog yesterday i saw an unusually white stone on the ground. Upon closer inspection, there is a pyramid visible inside the otherwise classic "just a rock" shape. I think it's a large chunk of halite, aka rock salt. I wonder if nature has already solved this problem, being very 'good' at solving energy equations even if via brute trial and error for long periods of time. Now i want to go play in the kosher salt :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 23:02:20 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:02:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] musk stick a landing In-Reply-To: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> References: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 19, 2017, at 9:56 AM, spike wrote: > > > Woohoo! Way to go, SpaceX! > > http://www.space.com/35760-spacex-rocket-launch-landing-success-nasa-pad.html?utm_source=notification#ooid=ZlNW91OTE6BGFRSgBu34HjBvEjvf7PzY > > ooooh this is cool. Great news to wake up to! (No, I didn't just wake up. I mean when I heard about it hours ago.;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Feb 19 23:56:28 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:56:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] musk stick a landing In-Reply-To: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> References: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> Message-ID: So cool On Feb 19, 2017 10:57 AM, "spike" wrote: > > > Woohoo! Way to go, SpaceX! > > > > http://www.space.com/35760-spacex-rocket-launch-landing- > success-nasa-pad.html?utm_source=notification#ooid= > ZlNW91OTE6BGFRSgBu34HjBvEjvf7PzY > > > > ooooh this is cool. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Feb 19 23:50:37 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 15:50:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <01b501d28a33$ccb49e80$661ddb80$@att.net> Message-ID: <01b101d28b0a$f864b8d0$e92e2a70$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Mike were you the one who proposed phi? Want to stay with that answer? Yeah, it was a hopeful guess. >?Now I'm guessing it's a magic ratio in some other part of this equation. Ex: the surface area of square side to triangular side - for reasons similar to how only the surface area of a sphere is relevant to the information to describe the volume? >?When the CG of the nanoGizr is the same on the square base or triangular face, then h = square root 2. I am confident now that phi does not appear in this case, because it has that square root 5 in there. What I realized while carving nanoGizrs last night was this thing has all kinds of scale dependencies that do not apply to cubes much. If there are any electromagnetic effects, then square/cube effects hide behind every rock and tree. If we are talking about conservation of momentum, we end up in cube/fifth power scaling effects. Reasoning: angular momentum is moment of inertia times angular rate. Mass of the nanoGizr scales as the third power of the side length, but the moment of inertia scales as the fifth power of the side length. The symmetry of a cube washes away a pile of stuff that comes into play with a nanoGizr or any tumbling unsymmetrical solid object. >?While walking the dog yesterday i saw an unusually white stone on the ground. Upon closer inspection, there is a pyramid visible inside the otherwise classic "just a rock" shape. I think it's a large chunk of halite, aka rock salt. I wonder if nature has already solved this problem, being very 'good' at solving energy equations even if via brute trial and error for long periods of time? In principle I agree, but that you found a piece of halite outdoors I consider unlikely. Many crystals form a face-centered cubic structure, but halite will be unlikely to stay long outdoors (too water soluble.) I just heard my set of 20 nanoGizrs will be ready soon. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 00:08:41 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 00:08:41 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58AA3389.1060402@yahoo.com> Brent Allsop wrote: > I think it is true that "If you know something, there must be something that is that knowledge." Would you agree? No. Not some/thing/. I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but there is such a thing as 'knowing'. More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an information-process. So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there must be an information process that is that knowing". > For example, you pointed out that you can produce an after image experience by staring at cyan for a while and then quickly looking at white. I think it is very telling about what you are ignoring in this example, in that you didn't actually say the result was a redness experience. I know what the result is. I wasn't ignoring it, I was leaving it for the reader to discover. Again, it's important not to confuse the 'redness experience' for a thing. It's a process. In this case, a process that is the experience of something that isn't there. Which was the point of using that example. > You say it is: " 'conjured up' by our visual system." But I ask you, what is it, that is conjured up? Is it not knowledge that has a redness quality which you can experience as the final result of the processing of your visual system? And again, no 'thing' is conjured up. There's just the conjuring itself. That is the process of experiencing a red ball right in front of you. What I mean by 'conjuring up' is that a vast amount of information is combined in various ways. No 'things' are involved, except as components of the substrate that embodies the processing (membranes and ions, mostly). You might ask "Yes, but what does that consist of?". The only answer we can give is that the process is embodied as patterns of neural activation that lead to responses such as wanting to kick the red ball, or running away, if you happen to be afraid of big red balls, or saying "Oooh, look, a big red ball!", etc. We don't yet know exactly what the information processing consists of, we just know that it's fantastically complex and that our brains do it easily. One day we will know, and then we'll be able to build new minds, and understand our own. Because it's a process, the actual embodiment doesn't matter, as long as it's capable of doing the required processing. A planet full of beer-cans connected with string could do it (slowly), or a large computer, a massive ant colony, etc. (have you read "Wang's Carpets" by Greg Egan? That contains a good description of this idea). Anything that can process information with the required degree of complexity, provided it was connected to suitable inputs and outputs, can do it. Ben Zaiboc From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 01:12:42 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 20:12:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] tumbling pyramids again In-Reply-To: References: <01b501d28a33$ccb49e80$661ddb80$@att.net> <01b101d28b0a$f864b8d0$e92e2a70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 19, 2017 7:06 PM, "spike" wrote: In principle I agree, but that you found a piece of halite outdoors I consider unlikely. Many crystals form a face-centered cubic structure, but halite will be unlikely to stay long outdoors (too water soluble.) I was at a school. No doubt this chunk of salt came off a truck. It's been cold enough to worry about salting roads, then warm enough to want to go for a walk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 01:50:29 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2017 20:50:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <268bcebe-52e3-04ea-ec68-8b639d9e4b26@gmail.com> References: <268bcebe-52e3-04ea-ec68-8b639d9e4b26@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > All you seem to do is repeat over and over again with your overly > simplistic system that A: the brain is a system made of parts, that B: each > part interacts with neighboring parts, and finally C: if you replace one > part with a different part that interacts with its neighbors in the same > way, then the system as a whole will behave in the same way. > ?That admirably summarizes my position, except that I see nothing overly simplistic about it. All complex objects are made of simpler parts, and the only important thing about a part is the way it interacts with other parts. ? ?> ? In addition to all the "hard" (as in impossible) problems that result with your insufficient swapping steps > ?I don't understand this objection of yours.? > ?> ? > there is this: I know I (there I didn't say "we", are you happy John?) > > ?Yes? because I think its important not to be a organic bigot. Without exception every single objection to a computer being conscious can also be used to argue that none of your fellow human beings are conscious. If the argument is good for one it's good for the other, and so both should be treated equally. I might be paraphrasing just a tad but I think Martin Luther King said: *I have a dream that one day ?we will ?live in a nation where ?intelligent beings will not be judged by ?whether their brain is made of silicon or carbon but by the content of their character.? I have a dream?!? * ?Well... that's how I remember what he said anyway.? > ?> ? > can be conscious of 1: redness and 2: greenness at the same time, as a > composite experience. > > ?And a computer can remember 2 different things at the same time.? > ?> ? > And 3: using this composite awareness of each of these qualitatively > different functionalities express that they are different. > > ?If they were not different they wouldn't be 2 things, it would be one thing. ? ?> ? > And 3: using this composite awareness of each of these qualitatively > different functionalities express that they are different. ?Yes, but I don't see your point. If there is somebody around here ? ?claiming that red is the same as green it certainly isn't me.? > ?> ? > With the system that you describe, and the simplistic way you do the do > the neural substitution on "parts" > > ?Why the quotation marks? For some reason reductionism isn't very trendy nowadays but it's what makes science work. ?> ? > with minimal interactions with their neighbors, > > ?Nobody is demanding ? minimal interactions with their neighbors ?, let the interactions be gargantuan if you like, but if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall behavior of the system. > ?> ? > Plain and simple, your system is completely qualia blind, like all the > experimental neuro science being done today that I know of. > > The system as described is certainly not blind, it can distinguish between red and green as well as you can, maybe better. It's true that I can't prove that the system as described actually experiences qualia, but then I can't prove that the system called "Brent Allsop" actually experiences qualia either, not unless I accept the postulate that Charles Darwin was correct. > ?> ? > If you do a neuro substitution on any system which does have sufficient > detail to at least model these 3 necessary functions > ? > ? [...] > > ?Then? ?the substituted neuron will effect other neurons differently than the way the ?original neuron did and it's just a bad simulation and all you've learned is that a bad simulation will bring no enlightenment to anyone. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 05:48:54 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 16:48:54 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <58AA3389.1060402@yahoo.com> References: <58AA3389.1060402@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Brent Allsop wrote: >Dang, not quite communicating yet. You keep saying this over and over again. I, also, over and over again in reply, try to describe the many problems that I see with this. Thanks to all your help, I'm hopefully getting better each time. But you never provide any evidence that you are trying to understand the problems I'm trying to describe. All you seem to do is repeat over and over again with your overly simplistic system that A: the brain is a system made of parts, that B: each part interacts with neighboring parts, and finally C: if you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its neighbors in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the same way. Can you state if you AGREE or DISAGREE that replacing a part with another part that interacts with its neighbours in the same way as the original will result in the whole system behaving the same? If you DISAGREE can you give an explanation of how this could happen as to me it seems logically impossible. >In addition to all the "hard" (as in impossible) problems that result with your insufficient swapping steps, there is this: I know I (there I didn't say "we", are you happy John?) can be conscious of 1: redness and 2: greenness at the same time, as a composite experience. And 3: using this composite awareness of each of these qualitatively different functionalities express that they are different. With the system that you describe, and the simplistic way you do the do the neural substitution on "parts" with minimal interactions with their neighbors, it isn't possible to do the 3 above described functionalities without completely ignoring them. You must do a substitution on some kind of system that has a reasonable chance of modeling the 3 mentioned functionalities adequately to be able to make any kind of claim that you know what is going on, phenomenally, with the neural substitution. Plain and simple, your system is completely qualia blind, like all the experimental neuro science being done today that I know of. The "simplistic" substitution will reproduce all the behaviour of the brain, including the behaviour associated with the composite experience and comparison of red and green. The behaviour associated with the composite experience of red and green includes, for example, the subject being able to pick the red strawberries among the green leaves and saying, when asked, "the strawberries are red, the leaves are green, and everything looks exactly the same as it did before you told me the substitution in my brain was made". The reason this behaviour will stay the same is that the subject's muscles will contract in the same sequence because they receive the same sequence of neural stimuli. Given the "simplistic" substitution, it is logically necessary that this is what will occur. >If you do a neuro substitution on any system which does have sufficient detail to at least model these 3 necessary functions (my simplified glutamate theory for example), there will be no "hard problems", and everything we subjectively know about how we can be aware of diverse composite qualitative experiences, will be sufficiently modeled. We will be able to understand why the simplistic neural substitution of your system is qualia blind and leads some to think there are "hard problems". We will be able to say we understand how these composite subjective experiences work and why, both subjectively and objectively, as the neuro substitution progresses. To do the replacement you don't have to model anything or understand anything about the higher level function of the brain. All you have to do is observe and model the individual parts that you are replacing. You can completely ignore every function of the brain and be confident that it will be reproduced, just as you can be confident that every function of your computer will be reproduced if its switchmode power supply is replaced with a battery that can supply the same voltage and current; you don't have to worry that MS Word will run properly but Adobe Photoshop will not. On 20 February 2017 at 11:08, Ben wrote: > Brent Allsop wrote: > > I think it is true that "If you know something, there must be something > that is that knowledge." Would you agree? > > No. > Not some/thing/. > > I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark > would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an > adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but > there is such a thing as 'knowing'. > > More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an > information-process. > > So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there > must be an information process that is that knowing". > > > For example, you pointed out that you can produce an after image > experience by staring at cyan for a while and then quickly looking at > white. I think it is very telling about what you are ignoring in this > example, in that you didn't actually say the result was a redness > experience. > > I know what the result is. I wasn't ignoring it, I was leaving it for the > reader to discover. Again, it's important not to confuse the 'redness > experience' for a thing. It's a process. In this case, a process that is > the experience of something that isn't there. Which was the point of using > that example. > > > > You say it is: " 'conjured up' by our visual system." But I ask you, > what is it, that is conjured up? Is it not knowledge that has a redness > quality which you can experience as the final result of the processing of > your visual system? > > And again, no 'thing' is conjured up. There's just the conjuring itself. > That is the process of experiencing a red ball right in front of you. What > I mean by 'conjuring up' is that a vast amount of information is combined > in various ways. No 'things' are involved, except as components of the > substrate that embodies the processing (membranes and ions, mostly). > > You might ask "Yes, but what does that consist of?". The only answer we > can give is that the process is embodied as patterns of neural activation > that lead to responses such as wanting to kick the red ball, or running > away, if you happen to be afraid of big red balls, or saying "Oooh, look, a > big red ball!", etc. > We don't yet know exactly what the information processing consists of, we > just know that it's fantastically complex and that our brains do it easily. > One day we will know, and then we'll be able to build new minds, and > understand our own. > > Because it's a process, the actual embodiment doesn't matter, as long as > it's capable of doing the required processing. A planet full of beer-cans > connected with string could do it (slowly), or a large computer, a massive > ant colony, etc. (have you read "Wang's Carpets" by Greg Egan? That > contains a good description of this idea). Anything that can process > information with the required degree of complexity, provided it was > connected to suitable inputs and outputs, can do it. > > > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 14:10:21 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:10:21 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home Message-ID: You can now use Augmented Reality when shopping to see what furniture etc. would look like when in your home. Seamless Augmented Reality Product Visualization Augment?s AR platform connects retailers and manufacturers, allowing online shoppers to experience products at home before buying. -------------------------- It strikes me that this is only a small step away from never having to shop or redecorate again. If you wear AR goggles, you can make your home appear to be a palace. The AR would recognise where objects are in your home and replace each object image with an image of your choice. You might live in an absolute hovel, but to you it would appear like the Trump Palace. (Oh, well, maybe not exactly like that). :) Even better, your partner can choose different images that they prefer and you are both happy. No more arguments about that lime-green wallpaper! Let's hope that AR goggles get smaller and more convenient quickly. BillK From sparge at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 14:25:53 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 09:25:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:10 AM, BillK wrote: > > It strikes me that this is only a small step away from never having to > shop or redecorate again. > > If you wear AR goggles, you can make your home appear to be a palace. > The AR would recognise where objects are in your home and replace each > object image with an image of your choice. > > You might live in an absolute hovel, but to you it would appear like > the Trump Palace. (Oh, well, maybe not exactly like that). :) > Well, yeah, except for the fact that furniture has function. > Even better, your partner can choose different images that they prefer > and you are both happy. > No more arguments about that lime-green wallpaper! > Even better, you can choose to make your partner look more attractive or even like someone else altogether. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 17:17:23 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 17:17:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20 February 2017 at 14:25, Dave Sill wrote: > Well, yeah, except for the fact that furniture has function. > Yes, but any old chair, table or couch would do. The VR just has to follow the same shape and change the colour or styling. Though VR would have to make sure that your sense of touch wasn't confused when you tried to touch something that wasn't there in reality. Like trying to put a cup down on a table extension that wasn't there. > > Even better, you can choose to make your partner look more attractive or > even like someone else altogether. > Again, looking and touching would have to match. :) I think the VR processors need to advance to the next generation to cope with mobile objects like other humans or animals. Changing the wallpaper or pictures on the wall is much easier to process. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 18:31:52 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 12:31:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: References: <00d101d28aea$baf56370$30e02a50$@att.net> Message-ID: To everybody: You guys are like a pack of wild dogs into which a pack of pork chops has been thrown, resulting in chaos and running every which way. The idea was AI humor. But it's OK. I guess that didn't attract any interest. To Adrian: I just dunno about starboardly as to whether people would catch it without a bit of help. You guys are smarter than a typical sample. I certainly agree that too much help is numbing. But now that's academic, so there. Is there a dumber name for any animal than 'fly'? Why isn't there an animal named 'swim'? Or 'waddle', or 'run'? We do have 'duck'. bill w On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 4:23 PM, BillK wrote: > On 19 February 2017 at 19:59, spike wrote: > > > > Wordplay is big fun, but even bigger is niche humor. I was at a > gathering > > of friends last night. Nearly everyone there is science/technical sorts, > > ladies included. So while we were carving nanoGeezers, I googled up > Wolfram > > Alpha and asked for a physics joke, being as our surgeon guest took his > > undergrad degrees double major in physics and engineering. It gave me > this: > > > > ... two neutrinos went through a bar... > > > > We laughed at that silly joke like a bunch of stoners, but there was zero > > drugs or alcohol at that party. Why? It was one of those insider > things, > > hard to explain. After I told it, the thought occurred to me that this > > might be the shortest joke known, six words. Then today Adrian uncorks: > > There there, they're their heirs. This is sorta five and a half words. > > > > Conclusion: humor is weird. The neutrino bar joke might be the shortest > > known non-wordplay gag. > > > > > One of my all-time favourite cartoons that always makes me smile is the > scientist standing in front of a huge blackboard covered in diagrams > and complex formulae. Near the bottom of the diagram is a box > containing the words "Here magic happens". > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 19:16:55 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 14:16:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:17 PM, BillK wrote: > On 20 February 2017 at 14:25, Dave Sill wrote: > > Well, yeah, except for the fact that furniture has function. > > Yes, but any old chair, table or couch would do. > For appearance and nominal functionality, yes. But to obviate the need for shopping, no. If my chair works fine but looks like crap and I'm willing to use VR to fix it, that's great. But if my chair is broken or uncomfortable or lacks features I need (reclining, swiveling, casters, etc.) then I still need to physically replace it. > Even better, you can choose to make your partner look more attractive or > > even like someone else altogether. > > Again, looking and touching would have to match. :) > Ideally, yes, but the same is true of furniture. > I think the VR processors need to advance to the next generation to > cope with mobile objects like other humans or animals. Changing the > wallpaper or pictures on the wall is much easier to process. > Yes, crawl first, then walk. I'm just thinking ahead. :-) -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 20:26:10 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 20:26:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20 February 2017 at 19:16, Dave Sill wrote: > For appearance and nominal functionality, yes. But to obviate the need for > shopping, no. If my chair works fine but looks like crap and I'm willing to > use VR to fix it, that's great. But if my chair is broken or uncomfortable > or lacks features I need (reclining, swivelling, casters, etc.) then I still > need to physically replace it. > Yea, I don't see any way for VR to fix broken stuff. :) And you would still need to shop for the latest furnishings. But it should make the old furnishings more interesting so that they last until they wear out or break. i.e. no need to change the furnishing because you get fed up with the look - just change the VR. The annual redecorating job should also be easier. Home VR would make living in very sparse conditions much more colourful. A blank wall can become anything you like, tropical island views, wood panelling, mountain scenery, etc. The main problem is that visitors would have to be given duplicate VR lenses so that they don't see the full horror of real life living conditions. :) BillK From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 20:57:36 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 20:57:36 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58AB5840.5020704@yahoo.com> I find it amusing that AR is so often touted as something that will enable people to sell and buy things more easily. It has WAY more potential than that. It's also amusing that advertisers seem to see it as a tool for making their products more pervasive, whereas I see it as a very powerful tool /against/ advertising. I suppose it has the potential to be all things to all men. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Feb 20 20:59:44 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 20:59:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58AB58C0.4090004@yahoo.com> John K Clark wrote: "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall behaviour of the system" Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has been saying. Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at least it's understandable now. Thanks, John. Ben Zaiboc From pharos at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 22:55:39 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:55:39 +0000 Subject: [ExI] musk stick a landing In-Reply-To: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> References: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> Message-ID: On 19 February 2017 at 17:56, spike wrote: > > > Woohoo! Way to go, SpaceX! > > ooooh this is cool. > Video of Falcon 9 landing (i min) BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 01:49:53 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 17:49:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] musk stick a landing In-Reply-To: References: <000401d28ad9$8d7495d0$a85dc170$@att.net> Message-ID: <62A7D290-E2AA-4027-B947-56C23864500C@gmail.com> On Feb 20, 2017, at 2:55 PM, BillK wrote: >> On 19 February 2017 at 17:56, spike wrote: >> >> Woohoo! Way to go, SpaceX! >> >> ooooh this is cool. > > Video of Falcon 9 landing (i min) > > That's what I want in a landing: uneventful. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 21 02:58:46 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:58:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: References: <00d101d28aea$baf56370$30e02a50$@att.net> Message-ID: <020901d28bee$6c6dfaf0$4549f0d0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Monday, February 20, 2017 10:32 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] AI humor To everybody: >?You guys are like a pack of wild dogs into which a pack of pork chops has been thrown, resulting in chaos and running every which way? I disagree! The wild dogs go straight for the chops. We do the chaos and running about with no actual pork chops for a reward. >?The idea was AI humor. But it's OK. I guess that didn't attract any interest? Ja, but we have no way to prove that we are not AIs ourselves. Every gag might be AI humor. >?Is there a dumber name for any animal than 'fly'? Why isn't there an animal named 'swim'? Or 'waddle', or 'run'? We do have 'duck'. bill w How about goose? I have never actually seen one do that, but it must have gotten the name somehow. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 04:32:49 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 20:32:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:10 AM, BillK wrote: > If you wear AR goggles, you can make your home appear to be a palace. Assuming that nobody else (at least, who isn't wearing goggles synced up to the same software your house is running) ever comes by to visit. But if that's the case - say, if all your socialization is outside your house and/or online - then probably even you don't care what your house looks like, making it pointless. From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 21 05:36:11 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 21:36:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] damn crisis Message-ID: <029801d28c04$69b93930$3d2bab90$@att.net> I don't know what to do about this damn crisis. I am thinking of taking up some religion just so I can have someone to pray to, that the Oroville Dam holds. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38072 bytes Desc: not available URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 06:16:58 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:16:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] damn crisis In-Reply-To: <029801d28c04$69b93930$3d2bab90$@att.net> References: <029801d28c04$69b93930$3d2bab90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, spike wrote: > I don?t know what to do about this damn crisis. I am thinking of taking > up some religion just so I can have someone to pray to, that the Oroville > Dam holds. > If you must pray, pray to the engineers. Or better yet, help them. Maybe call them up and ask if there's anything you can do to help: organize supply donations, get their food for them (they don't have time to go out to lunch), et cetera. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 06:45:04 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 22:45:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] CERN has proved ghosts don't exist In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As noted in the comments, first you have to define what ghosts are. Unless you can rigorously show that what you are disproving includes all possible models of "ghosts", you have nothing to start from. (TBH, a more rigorous exclusion of ghosts would come from biology. If ghosts are energy patterns left over (from what animates the body) after death - well, "left over" means they were around during life, right? And if they were part of what animates the body, we can show conclusively 100% of what does that, and that none of that sticks around for long once the body shuts down completely, nor does it go anywhere: it just discorporates as the substrate stops working, not unlike software in a CPU that's being melted down.) On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 4:07 AM, BillK wrote: > Has the Large Hadron Collider Disproved the Existence of Ghosts? > > By Ross Pomeroy > February 16, 2017 > > > > Quotes: > Much of the general public probably isn't aware of these fascinating, > yet unfortunately, esoteric discoveries at the LHC. Particle physics > simply doesn't inspire as much interest as say, ghosts. At least four > in ten Americans believe in ghosts, and it's likely that even fewer > people are aware of the LHC. On that note, at least one physicist > contends that the LHC has, in fact, disproved the existence of ghosts. > > On a recent broadcast of BBC Radio Four's The Infinite Monkey Cage > centered around science and the paranormal, Cox had this to say on the > topic: > "Before we ask the first question, I want to make a statement: We are > not here to debate the existence of ghosts because they don't exist." > > He continued: > "If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our > living cells to persist then we must specify precisely what medium > carries that pattern and how it interacts with the matter particles > out of which our bodies are made. We must, in other words, invent an > extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped > detection at the Large Hadron Collider. That's almost inconceivable at > the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies." > --------- > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 07:02:53 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 23:02:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Augmented Reality in the Home In-Reply-To: <58AB5840.5020704@yahoo.com> References: <58AB5840.5020704@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Ben wrote: > I find it amusing that AR is so often touted as something that will enable > people to sell and buy things more easily. It has WAY more potential than > that. What specifically do you see? And, almost as important, how would people make money off it? Advertisers make money by advertising, so that's what they see AR as useful for. If you want another use to become popular, the benefit to the user has to overcome the cost and hassle. Ironically, this is what's likely to keep advertisers' AR dreams from becoming reality. Being advertised to is usually of negative benefit to the user, unless and until advertisers actually make good on promises of relevant ads. (Advertisers say they'll have relevant ads any moment now. They have no credibility left on that promise, after failing epicly for decades.) Therefore, users have less reason to use systems that advertise to them than equivalent systems that do not. Notice how similar attempts to put intrusive ads into GPS apps tend to just wind up with the apps that feature said ads seeing plummeting usage, and competing apps with more than a few users left disallowing said ads in the interests of retaining their user base. From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 14:32:13 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:32:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling Message-ID: If ever the need for civics to be required in high school was evident, it's now. A PPP poll shows that 51% of Trump supporters think that the President should be able to overturn any judicial ruling he doesn't like. It's not just Trump that's the problem we now have. His people want their own way regardless of any principles of judicial supremacy laid down since The Magna Carta. Trump is just the top of the iceberg. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 14:34:43 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:34:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] damn crisis In-Reply-To: References: <029801d28c04$69b93930$3d2bab90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:36 PM, spike wrote: > >> >> > Maybe call them up and ask if there's anything you can do to help: > organize supply donations, get their food for them (they don't have time to > go out to lunch), et cetera. > ?-------------- This is the one of the roles of the Red Cross - feeding operation. (I was a Disaster Chairman of the ARC awhile back). 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 Feb 21 14:46:11 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:46:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 February 2017 at 14:32, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > If ever the need for civics to be required in high school was evident, it's > now. > A PPP poll shows that 51% of Trump supporters think that the President > should be able to overturn any judicial ruling he doesn't like. > > It's not just Trump that's the problem we now have. His people want their > own way regardless of any principles of judicial supremacy laid down since > The Magna Carta. > Trump is just the top of the iceberg. > When the elites have corrupted the system to enrich themselves and consider themselves to be above the law and entitled to drive over half the country into poverty, then desperation drives people into unreasoning push-back. Trump is the symptom of a huge problem in the USA that needs to be corrected. BillK From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 15:56:44 2017 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:56:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To use a Star Wars analogy: there's no one Jar Jar Binks to point to, but if we have an Emperor it's because the Senate just spent 16 years throwing emergency powers at the Chancellor's office. The ability of the President to do almost anything via executive order has become the new normal. Partisans will always push from whatever the normal baseline is, so of course the Republican base is treating that as the baseline and agitating for more. We, the people, can't fix this. Congress might be able to, but do they really want to? I'm not optimistic. The courts are trying, so we'll see. But the relative powers of the three branches is something the branches will have to sort out. All we get to do is watch, and vote occasionally. On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:46 AM, BillK wrote: > On 21 February 2017 at 14:32, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > If ever the need for civics to be required in high school was evident, > it's > > now. > > A PPP poll shows that 51% of Trump supporters think that the President > > should be able to overturn any judicial ruling he doesn't like. > > > > It's not just Trump that's the problem we now have. His people want > their > > own way regardless of any principles of judicial supremacy laid down > since > > The Magna Carta. > > Trump is just the top of the iceberg. > > > > When the elites have corrupted the system to enrich themselves and > consider themselves to be above the law and entitled to drive over > half the country into poverty, then desperation drives people into > unreasoning push-back. Trump is the symptom of a huge problem in the > USA that needs to be corrected. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 16:59:02 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:59:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] AI humor In-Reply-To: <020901d28bee$6c6dfaf0$4549f0d0$@att.net> References: <00d101d28aea$baf56370$30e02a50$@att.net> <020901d28bee$6c6dfaf0$4549f0d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 8:58 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >?Is there a dumber name for any animal than 'fly'? Why isn't there an > animal named 'swim'? Or 'waddle', or 'run'? We do have 'duck'. bill w > > > > > > How about goose? I have never actually seen one do that, but it must have > gotten the name somehow. > > > > spike > Clearly you've never tried to feed a flock of geese. 'Goose' should be an aggressive act. ?Well, we have to add 'bull', 'ram', 'dog', 'buffalo', ............which came first, the verb or the noun? 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 Tue Feb 21 17:09:12 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:09:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 9:56 AM, Darin Sunley wrote: > To use a Star Wars analogy: there's no one Jar Jar Binks to point to, but > if we have an Emperor it's because the Senate just spent 16 years throwing > emergency powers at the Chancellor's office. > > The ability of the President to do almost anything via executive order has > become the new normal. Partisans will always push from whatever the normal > baseline is, so of course the Republican base is treating that as the > baseline and agitating for more. > > We, the people, can't fix this. Congress might be able to, but do they > really want to? I'm not optimistic. The courts are trying, so we'll see. > But the relative powers of the three branches is something the branches > will have to sort out. All we get to do is watch, and vote occasionally. > ?-------------------- > ?Notice that it was the wartime environment that created the 'need' for those powers of the president. We, the USA, have been the most aggressive nation (I think) over the last century, and many of the wars were huge mistakes - like ground fighting in Asia. Repubs get us into wars. Let's see what they do now. I can only hope that the protests will strengthen even further if they want to get us into more wars. They will want more of our money to go to buying arms etc. but will not raise taxes to pay for them, so liberal causes will suffer. We are governed by extremes now, and you know what old Winston said about it: 'A fanatic is one who can't *change* his mind and won't *change the subject*.' We'll just have to be the fanatics on the other side. bill w? > ? > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 7:46 AM, BillK wrote: > >> On 21 February 2017 at 14:32, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> > If ever the need for civics to be required in high school was evident, >> it's >> > now. >> > A PPP poll shows that 51% of Trump supporters think that the President >> > should be able to overturn any judicial ruling he doesn't like. >> > >> > It's not just Trump that's the problem we now have. His people want >> their >> > own way regardless of any principles of judicial supremacy laid down >> since >> > The Magna Carta. >> > Trump is just the top of the iceberg. >> > >> >> When the elites have corrupted the system to enrich themselves and >> consider themselves to be above the law and entitled to drive over >> half the country into poverty, then desperation drives people into >> unreasoning push-back. Trump is the symptom of a huge problem in the >> USA that needs to be corrected. >> >> BillK >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 21 17:40:11 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:40:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <036901d28c69$8e0f2e60$aa2d8b20$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling >?If ever the need for civics to be required in high school was evident, it's now? Ja! This last chaotic go-around was the best civics lesson Americans have ever enjoyed. >?A PPP poll shows that 51% of Trump supporters think that the President should be able to overturn any judicial ruling he doesn't like?bill w Fortunately for us, the US Constitution is written in such a way that a particular politician?s supporters opinion doesn?t matter. Had his competitor won, I fear the portion of her supporters with that view would have been even higher than 51%. Fortunately, the framers foresaw this and wrote the way they did. BillW, I agree. In California, we have a requirement that students applying for the state university system have studied a foreign language (not just any, but one on a prescribed list.) It isn?t just a small amount of study required, but rather a huge investment in classroom time (2 classroom years required, 3 recommended.) This is in a time when ignorance of the US Constitution grows daily, while we are on the verge of practical realtime voice-recognition translation by cell phones. So I agree: the UC system should require 2 classroom years in civics (with three recommended) to replace foreign language would be a breakthrough in public education. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 18:44:32 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:44:32 -0600 Subject: [ExI] three articles on robots Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pocket Hits Date: Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM Subject: The Post-Human World. Trump's Popularity. Reading for All Creatives. To: foozler83 at gmail.com [image: Pocket Hits] Three articles explore the impact of robots, work, and future labor requirements. The Washington Post examines one person's rise to the center of power and another's departure. [image: The Post-Human World] The Post-Human World Derek Thompson, The Atlantic Famine, plague, and war. These have been the three scourges of human history. But today, people in most countries are more likely to die from eating too much rather than too little, more likely to die of old age than a great plague, and more likely to commit suicide than to die in war. Save to Pocket [image: Robots Will Soon Do Your Taxes. Bye-Bye, Accounting Jobs] Robots Will Soon Do Your Taxes. Bye-Bye, Accounting Jobs Vashant Dhar, Wired The larger question here is whether this is a harbinger for the future of other major human occupations, the top 10 of which account for roughly 25 million jobs in the United States. Will these new AI machines put other major human professions at risk as well? Will a robot replace me? teaching my class on data science? Somewhat ironic, but a potential reality. Save to Pocket [image: No, Robots Aren?t Killing the American Dream] No, Robots Aren?t Killing the American Dream Editorial Board, The New York Times The rise of modern robots is the latest chapter in a centuries-old story of technology replacing people. Automation is the hero of the story in good times and the villain in bad. Since today?s middle class is in the midst of a prolonged period of wage stagnation, it is especially vulnerable to blame-the-robot rhetoric. Save to Pocket [image: This Year's Nebula Award Nominees Are Incredibly Diverse ? Read Some Online] This Year's Nebula Award Nominees Are Incredibly Diverse ? Read Some Online Andrew Liptak, The Verge Awarded annually since 1966, the Nebulas recognize the best novels, novellas, novelettes, and short stories within genre publishing. Save to Pocket [image: These 7 Books Are Necessary Reading for All Creatives] These 7 Books Are Necessary Reading for All Creatives Product Hunt There is no ?right? way to unleash your creative potential, but we?re believers in learning from the greats and creating your own artistic roadmap based on what resonates with you. Here are seven books that will inspire your inner genius?whether you do your creative work on a canvas or a spreadsheet. Save to Pocket [image: For a Trump Adviser, an Odyssey from the Fringes of Washington to the Center of Power] For a Trump Adviser, an Odyssey from the Fringes of Washington to the Center of Power Greg Jaffe, The Washington Post Gorka is a deputy assistant to the president. He reports to Stephen K. Bannon, Trump?s chief strategist, and is a member of his Strategic Initiatives Group. Bannon has spoken in similarly apocalyptic terms of a ?new barbarity? that threatens the Christian West. Save to Pocket [image: I Didn't Think I'd Ever Leave the CIA. But Because of Trump, I Quit.] I Didn't Think I'd Ever Leave the CIA. But Because of Trump, I Quit. Edward Price, The Washington Post Edward Price worked at the CIA from 2006 until this month, most recently as the spokesman for the National Security Council. Save to Pocket [image: The Masada Mystery] The Masada Mystery Eric Cline, Aeon Have archaeologists proven the ancient tale of mass suicide in the Judaean desert or twisted science for political end? Save to Pocket [image: Why Polls Differ On Trump?s Popularity] Why Polls Differ On Trump?s Popularity Nate Silver, Five Thirty Eight Here?s what we can say for sure: It?s unprecedented for a president to face so much opposition from the electorate so soon. Recent polls show that anywhere between 43 and 56 percent of Americans disapprove of President Trump?s job performance. Even if you take the low end of that range, Trump?s numbers are much worse than any past president a month into his term. Save to Pocket [image: Wearable Fitness Devices Don?t Seem to Make You More Fit] Wearable Fitness Devices Don?t Seem to Make You More Fit Aaron E. Carroll, The New York Times Many new technologies, and dietary supplements and new diets, are sold to the public with little actual research behind them. Wearable technology to encourage fitness is no different. Somehow, in the past few years, it has become collectively understood that we need to take 10,000 steps a day. But there?s no magic behind that number. There?s no reason to believe that hitting this arbitrary goal is somehow life-changing. Save to Pocket [image: Pocket] Blog [image: tw] [image: FB] Get the Pocket app to save and read anywhere: Privacy Policy ? Help Center ? Become a Sponsor You are receiving this email because you signed up for Pocket. Want to change how often you receive Pocket Hits newsletters? Update the frequency here , or unsubscribe . Read It Later, Inc., 233 Sansome Street, Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94104, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 20:28:56 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:28:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] tao Message-ID: Just got my copy of the Tao is Silent, and now a question or two: As we all know, no Chinese language has an alphabet. So we must translate Chinese characters to our alphabet. So far, so good. So why is it that Tao is pronounced as if it were Dao? Why not spell it as it sounds- phoenetically? (Sorry, have to include my little joke here: In the movie Smokey and the Bandit, the sheriff asks another sheriff, a black man, a question, and the black guy says "Is that germane?" And the sheriff, Jackie Gleason, says "What the hell do the Germans have to do with it?" And so, my little addition: what do the Phoenecians have to do with alternate spelling?) And how about Deng, as is Mao Tse? Pronounced as if it were spelled Dung. Now I can see this one in a sense. So as not to slur Mao, we spell Deng so as not to give offense. I have no idea if this is the reason , or what. Does anyone? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 20:39:38 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:39:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling In-Reply-To: <036901d28c69$8e0f2e60$aa2d8b20$@att.net> References: <036901d28c69$8e0f2e60$aa2d8b20$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:40 AM, spike wrote: > > > ? > the UC system should require 2 classroom years in civics (with three > recommended) to replace foreign language would be a breakthrough in public > education. > > > spike > ? > > > *?In my neck of the boonies, judging by the op-ed letters, which I always > respond to, most people don't know that our country was founded on > classical liberal principles and that none of the founding fathers was a > conservative in any sense of that word. To these people, liberal is a bad > word. So I suggest that political philosophy be taught as well. I would > add comparative religion as well, though getting a school board to agree on > the contents is probably pie in the sky. Need I add that sex be taught as > well? Preferably in grammar school. Frosty the Snowman in the core of the > sun. * > > ?bill w? > *liberal?* > extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] GOV - chilling > > > > >?If ever the need for civics to be required in high school was evident, > it's now? > > > > Ja! This last chaotic go-around was the best civics lesson Americans have > ever enjoyed. > > > > >?A PPP poll shows that 51% of Trump supporters think that the President > should be able to overturn any judicial ruling he doesn't like?bill w > > > > Fortunately for us, the US Constitution is written in such a way that a > particular politician?s supporters opinion doesn?t matter. Had his > competitor won, I fear the portion of her supporters with that view would > have been even higher than 51%. Fortunately, the framers foresaw this and > wrote the way they did. > > > > BillW, I agree. In California, we have a requirement that students > applying for the state university system have studied a foreign language > (not just any, but one on a prescribed list.) It isn?t just a small amount > of study required, but rather a huge investment in classroom time (2 > classroom years required, 3 recommended.) This is in a time when ignorance > of the US Constitution grows daily, while we are on the verge of practical > realtime voice-recognition translation by cell phones. So I agree: the UC > system should require 2 classroom years in civics (with three recommended) > to replace foreign language would be a breakthrough in public education. > > > > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 21:56:14 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 14:56:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? Message-ID: Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed him in this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of more iterations here since he was last CCed, we might have achieved a breakthrough (and this time I'm more sure than the last 100 or so times I thought this! ;) and I couldn't have done it without all your help. If you guys think you've told me your ever improving arguments too many times, James has given me Stathis' nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of times in ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective side, you need to do something like distinguish redness from greenness, and on the objective side, the same thing will appear to be something like distinguishing between the qualitative nature of something physical like (not, see below) glutamate and (not, see below) glycene neuro transmitters. On the subjective side, all we know of not glutamate, is it's redness quality. So thanks, everyone, for all your patient help over so many years with all this. Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get a kick out of this. He was the first person that helped me understand how all this knowledge in the brain stuff could work back in the 80s. He may have some better proposed theories about what qualitative not glutamate and not glycene may be, including what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for more context, you may want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I mean by the simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 where I describe how to eff the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible theoretical way. "*The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.*" Thomas A. Edison Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too. So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead to verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative discern-ability in any theoretical testable way, there needs to be at least 2 qualitative representation of knowledge or knowing. When you talk to me, you should use simple words like glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to represent this objective and subjective qualitative functionality representing knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified (though evidently this particular example theory is already falsified in some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of qualitative theory). But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben describes it this way: *<<<<* *Not some/thing/. * *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * *More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an information-process. * *So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there must be an information process that is that knowing". * *>>>>* So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the neuro scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" is the process of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know what qualitative distinguishable functionality is with this, on the detectable objective side, and it is important to have the ability to tell the qualitative difference between redness and greenness on the subjective side. This qualitative discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the system the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report qualitative difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is the process of knowing redness which is objectively detect-ably different than the process of knowing greenness. This can be true, even if it isn't possible to truly eff the difference - John would probably say you must change from Ben or John to know all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and you must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively detect-ably impossible. And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly proposed to be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding neuron. Or maybe, if you must maybe call it a binding - not a neuron. Whatever it is test-ably theoretically proposed to be, it is the ability for the system to be aware of and report, or fire, only when at least 2 different objective and subjective things are qualitatively different. It has the ability to combine simple or elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex composite qualia or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural intelligence. I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that champions "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro substitutuion argument, should think of "not glutamate" as. They will always assert that it will "arise" some place at some "functional" level, outside of wherever you propose to do the physical substitution test. They have a little trick that will always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no matter where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as I can see, the only possibility they have is that it "arises" in some impossible to objectively detect (else they will swap it out using this little trick) "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this little trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with glutamate, to keep the "binding neuron from functioning the same" before and after substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate receptor) with glycene (and it's glycene receptor). So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding neuron is firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis does the neural substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not glutamate receptor) with not glycene (and a not glycene receptor), even though you now have not glycene chemically reacting in both of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it is incorrectly doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they are different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have removed the necessary functional ability of the system to fire correctly and report qualitative discernment of not glutamate and not glycene. If you preserve the necessary qualitative discernible functionality (and the ability to verbally report such) with your theory, the system must report the qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the very qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no matter where you propose it might testably physically resides. No matter what you theorize that not glutamate and not glycene may be, and how it might be physically distinguished, Stathis and James will attempt to use some physical trick like not glutamate receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the necessary objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting in all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability to detect or discern it. Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability function, theoretically possibly by physically or chemically coupling the two synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's ability to be aware of when one synapse has the reference quality key like not glycene functionality and the lock like not glycene receptor functionality and the other synapse has either the same or the not glutamate and a not glutamate receptor, so the system can be aware of, and correctly report whether they lock and key like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice that by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are the same the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively detect not glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and there by objectively eff the ineffable - if science is able to prove your proposed not glutamate and not glycene, to be the real reliable for everyone and every subjective computer thing. Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the experimental neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to effingly test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, to know how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply because they are miss interpreting the abstracted information about what they are observing, and be able to eff the ineffable. I bet this will happen relatively rapidly, once experimentalists understand this kind of qualitative discern ability theory, and how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing. So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is there any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative discern-ability theory so that more neuro scientists can more easily relate to it? Brent Allsop On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: John K Clark wrote: "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall behaviour of the system" Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has been saying. Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at least it's understandable now. Thanks, John. Ben Zaiboc _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hi Stathis, > > You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. > Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. > > > As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the > prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we > experience. > It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument is this: A. The brain is a system made of parts. B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the same way. D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia would change but the behaviour would not. E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily inverted. The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, qualitatively correctly. Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if you believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds or paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and John Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be approachable via objective or sharable science? Brent On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > > Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise so > we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our > misunderstanding is captured by you with this: > > On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative representation". > *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to consider in order to > replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that if you ignore qualia > and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the qualia will also > necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which I believe is > clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. > > > Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are > saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first > want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable > behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even > if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or > removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move > beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I > can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first > understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, > this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this > initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be > able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of > doing neuro substitution. > > Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 > element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a > unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative > representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is > binding the two different representations into one composite experience. > The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative > representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on > which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could > lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively > the same or not. > > So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the > following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of > the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the > functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is > performing the function of binding these two representations of information > together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd > awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. > > You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first focus > on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* then the > qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of qualia > is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of the > functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. > > Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective way > of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that has > or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene that > performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with > subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with > objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd > part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's > sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - > outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge > are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way > it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make > one composite qualitative experience. > > Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the > glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison > neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison > functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate > that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it > be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the > redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge > are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet > you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are > different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro > substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it > being the source of all the "hard" problems. > I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, triggering the next neuron in the chain. Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of events I have described I have missed something and explain how the glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in > some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other > abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be > reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a > neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison > functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being > compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison > functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I > don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically > possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a > binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it > is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution > occurs. > > If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring > and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method > of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious > what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having > two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one > that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and > the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We > will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta > comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the > qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so > you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what > it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always > indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other > after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this > *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on > with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro > substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable > behavior*. > > Does that help? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cryptaxe at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 20:33:48 2017 From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:33:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tao In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I cant answer your question but I am very interested in seeing the answer. I just wanted to say you should also check out The Tao of Pooh, and Tao Te Cheng if you haven't already! On Feb 21, 2017 12:30 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > Just got my copy of the Tao is Silent, and now a question or two: > > As we all know, no Chinese language has an alphabet. So we must translate > Chinese characters to our alphabet. So far, so good. > > So why is it that Tao is pronounced as if it were Dao? Why not spell it > as it sounds- phoenetically? > > (Sorry, have to include my little joke here: In the movie Smokey and the > Bandit, the sheriff asks another sheriff, a black man, a question, and the > black guy says "Is that germane?" And the sheriff, Jackie Gleason, says > "What the hell do the Germans have to do with it?" And so, my little > addition: what do the Phoenecians have to do with alternate spelling?) > > And how about Deng, as is Mao Tse? Pronounced as if it were spelled > Dung. Now I can see this one in a sense. So as not to slur Mao, we spell > Deng so as not to give offense. I have no idea if this is the reason , or > what. > > Does anyone? > > 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 Tue Feb 21 22:09:57 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:09:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > ? > *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark > would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an > adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but > there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * > ?------------------- Here I am again, butting into a conversation I don't understand. BUT - what is meant by 'thing' and does it matter what we call knowledge? If it is more of a verb than a noun, how does that help us understand it? If you want to get away from an analogy like 'knowledge is a thing sitting in a folder waiting to be accessed, like your dental xrays', then I still want to know how that helps. bill w? > ? > > Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, > > > James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed him in > this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of more iterations > here since he was last CCed, we might have achieved a breakthrough (and > this time I'm more sure than the last 100 or so times I thought this! ;) > and I couldn't have done it without all your help. If you guys think > you've told me your ever improving arguments too many times, James has > given me Stathis' nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of > times in ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James > continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective side, you > need to do something like distinguish redness from greenness, and on the > objective side, the same thing will appear to be something like > distinguishing between the qualitative nature of something physical like > (not, see below) glutamate and (not, see below) glycene neuro > transmitters. On the subjective side, all we know of not glutamate, is > it's redness quality. So thanks, everyone, for all your patient help over > so many years with all this. > > > Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get a kick > out of this. He was the first person that helped me understand how all > this knowledge in the brain stuff could work back in the 80s. He may have > some better proposed theories about what qualitative not glutamate and not > glycene may be, including what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for > more context, you may want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I > mean by the simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: > redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 where I describe how to eff > the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible theoretical way. > > > "*The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.*" > Thomas A. Edison > > > Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, > but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the > ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) > qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too. > > So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative > discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead to > verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative discern-ability in any > theoretical testable way, there needs to be at least 2 qualitative > representation of knowledge or knowing. When you talk to me, you should > use simple words like glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to > represent this objective and subjective qualitative functionality > representing knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified > (though evidently this particular example theory is already falsified in > some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of qualitative theory). > But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben describes it this way: > > *<<<<* > *Not some/thing/. * > > *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark > would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an > adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but > there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * > > *More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an > information-process. * > > *So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there > must be an information process that is that knowing". * > *>>>>* > > So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not > glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the neuro > scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" is the process > of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know what qualitative > distinguishable functionality is with this, on the detectable objective > side, and it is important to have the ability to tell the qualitative > difference between redness and greenness on the subjective side. This > qualitative discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the > system the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of > strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report qualitative > difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is the process of knowing > redness which is objectively detect-ably different than the process of > knowing greenness. This can be true, even if it isn't possible to truly > eff the difference - John would probably say you must change from Ben or > John to know all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and > you must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. > While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively detect-ably > impossible. > > And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly proposed to > be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding neuron. Or maybe, if > you must maybe call it a binding - not a neuron. Whatever it is test-ably > theoretically proposed to be, it is the ability for the system to be aware > of and report, or fire, only when at least 2 different objective and > subjective things are qualitatively different. It has the ability to > combine simple or elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex > composite qualia or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural > intelligence. > > I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that champions > "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro substitutuion argument, > should think of "not glutamate" as. They will always assert that it will > "arise" some place at some "functional" level, outside of wherever you > propose to do the physical substitution test. They have a little trick > that will always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical > theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no matter > where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as I can see, the > only possibility they have is that it "arises" in some impossible to > objectively detect (else they will swap it out using this little trick) > "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. > > Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this little > trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with glutamate, to keep > the "binding neuron from functioning the same" before and after > substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate receptor) with glycene (and it's > glycene receptor). > > So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative > difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding neuron is > firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis does the neural > substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not glutamate receptor) with not > glycene (and a not glycene receptor), even though you now have not glycene > chemically reacting in both of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it > is incorrectly doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they > are different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not > glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have removed the > necessary functional ability of the system to fire correctly and report > qualitative discernment of not glutamate and not glycene. If you preserve > the necessary qualitative discernible functionality (and the ability to > verbally report such) with your theory, the system must report the > qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this > little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the very > qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no matter where you > propose it might testably physically resides. No matter what you theorize > that not glutamate and not glycene may be, and how it might be physically > distinguished, Stathis and James will attempt to use some physical trick > like not glutamate receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the > necessary objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting > in all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability to > detect or discern it. > > Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability function, > theoretically possibly by physically or chemically coupling the two > synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's ability to be aware of > when one synapse has the reference quality key like not glycene > functionality and the lock like not glycene receptor functionality and the > other synapse has either the same or the not glutamate and a not glutamate > receptor, so the system can be aware of, and correctly report whether they > lock and key like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice > that by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing > correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are the same > the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively detect not > glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and there by objectively > eff the ineffable - if science is able to prove your proposed not glutamate > and not glycene, to be the real reliable for everyone and every subjective > computer thing. Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the > experimental neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to > effingly test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, > how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, to know > how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply because they are > miss interpreting the abstracted information about what they are observing, > and be able to eff the ineffable. I bet this will happen relatively > rapidly, once experimentalists understand this kind of qualitative discern > ability theory, and how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are > observing. > > > So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is there > any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative discern-ability > theory so that more neuro scientists can more easily relate to it? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: > > John K Clark wrote: > > "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part > interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall > behaviour of the system" > > Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. > > He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that > it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, > whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. > > I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has been > saying. > > Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think > there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at > least it's understandable now. > > Thanks, John. > > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. >> Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. >> >> >> As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the >> prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we >> experience. >> > It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is > necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument > is this: > > A. The brain is a system made of parts. > B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. > C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its > neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the > same way. > D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia > would change but the behaviour would not. > E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. > > Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected > - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. > > That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical > world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and > white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, > glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness > quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be > aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world > there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily > inverted. > > > The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can > understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro > substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a > simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively > interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to > apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that > is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, > what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the > single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, > once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by > miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) > and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, > qualitatively correctly. > > > Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified > theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if you > believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds or > paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and John > Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the > ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be > approachable via objective or sharable science? > > Brent > > > > On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise >> so we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our >> misunderstanding is captured by you with this: >> >> On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to >> consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that >> if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the >> qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which >> I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. >> >> >> Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are >> saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first >> want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable >> behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even >> if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or >> removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move >> beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I >> can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first >> understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, >> this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this >> initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be >> able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of >> doing neuro substitution. >> >> Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 >> element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a >> unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative >> representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is >> binding the two different representations into one composite experience. >> The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative >> representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on >> which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could >> lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively >> the same or not. >> >> So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the >> following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of >> the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the >> functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is >> performing the function of binding these two representations of information >> together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd >> awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. >> >> You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first >> focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* >> then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of >> qualia is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of >> the functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. >> >> Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective >> way of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that >> has or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene >> that performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with >> subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with >> objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd >> part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's >> sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - >> outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge >> are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way >> it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make >> one composite qualitative experience. >> >> Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the >> glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison >> neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison >> functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate >> that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it >> be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the >> redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge >> are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet >> you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are >> different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro >> substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it >> being the source of all the "hard" problems. >> > > I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond > to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what > neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that > are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate > receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell > membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach > non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes > described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of > this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, > leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic > receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the > receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, > potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes > the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of > transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then > cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and > ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, > triggering the next neuron in the chain. > > Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - > glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to > glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have > similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels > when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard > to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles > will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. > "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that > the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries > look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't > agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of > events I have described I have missed something and explain how the > glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can > possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. > > If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in >> some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other >> abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be >> reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a >> neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison >> functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being >> compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison >> functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I >> don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically >> possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a >> binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it >> is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution >> occurs. >> >> If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring >> and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method >> of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious >> what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having >> two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one >> that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and >> the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We >> will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta >> comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the >> qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so >> you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what >> it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always >> indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other >> after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this >> *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on >> with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro >> substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable >> behavior*. >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 Tue Feb 21 22:11:16 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:11:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] tao In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 2:33 PM, CryptAxe wrote: > I cant answer your question but I am very interested in seeing the answer. > I just wanted to say you should also check out The Tao of Pooh, and Tao Te > Cheng if you haven't already! > ?I have both, and thanks! I also have a few books by the Dalai Lama. bill w? > > On Feb 21, 2017 12:30 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > >> Just got my copy of the Tao is Silent, and now a question or two: >> >> As we all know, no Chinese language has an alphabet. So we must >> translate Chinese characters to our alphabet. So far, so good. >> >> So why is it that Tao is pronounced as if it were Dao? Why not spell it >> as it sounds- phoenetically? >> >> (Sorry, have to include my little joke here: In the movie Smokey and the >> Bandit, the sheriff asks another sheriff, a black man, a question, and the >> black guy says "Is that germane?" And the sheriff, Jackie Gleason, says >> "What the hell do the Germans have to do with it?" And so, my little >> addition: what do the Phoenecians have to do with alternate spelling?) >> >> And how about Deng, as is Mao Tse? Pronounced as if it were spelled >> Dung. Now I can see this one in a sense. So as not to slur Mao, we spell >> Deng so as not to give offense. I have no idea if this is the reason , or >> what. >> >> Does anyone? >> >> 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 Feb 21 22:23:42 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:23:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] tao In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm involved with Chinese philosophy, and anyone worth their merit says "Dao". I haven't seen it with a "T" in these circles unless it's referencing Western stuff. Every scientist should study the Dao. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 22:28:55 2017 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:28:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] tao In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here a good explanation: http://www.taoistic.com/tao-dao.htm On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:33 PM, CryptAxe wrote: > I cant answer your question but I am very interested in seeing the answer. > I just wanted to say you should also check out The Tao of Pooh, and Tao Te > Cheng if you haven't already! > > On Feb 21, 2017 12:30 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > >> Just got my copy of the Tao is Silent, and now a question or two: >> >> As we all know, no Chinese language has an alphabet. So we must >> translate Chinese characters to our alphabet. So far, so good. >> >> So why is it that Tao is pronounced as if it were Dao? Why not spell it >> as it sounds- phoenetically? >> >> (Sorry, have to include my little joke here: In the movie Smokey and the >> Bandit, the sheriff asks another sheriff, a black man, a question, and the >> black guy says "Is that germane?" And the sheriff, Jackie Gleason, says >> "What the hell do the Germans have to do with it?" And so, my little >> addition: what do the Phoenecians have to do with alternate spelling?) >> >> And how about Deng, as is Mao Tse? Pronounced as if it were spelled >> Dung. Now I can see this one in a sense. So as not to slur Mao, we spell >> Deng so as not to give offense. I have no idea if this is the reason , or >> what. >> >> Does anyone? >> >> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 23:03:10 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 10:03:10 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 February 2017 at 08:56, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, > > > James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed him in > this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of more iterations > here since he was last CCed, we might have achieved a breakthrough (and > this time I'm more sure than the last 100 or so times I thought this! ;) > and I couldn't have done it without all your help. If you guys think > you've told me your ever improving arguments too many times, James has > given me Stathis' nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of > times in ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James > continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective side, you > need to do something like distinguish redness from greenness, and on the > objective side, the same thing will appear to be something like > distinguishing between the qualitative nature of something physical like > (not, see below) glutamate and (not, see below) glycene neuro > transmitters. On the subjective side, all we know of not glutamate, is > it's redness quality. So thanks, everyone, for all your patient help over > so many years with all this. > > Perhaps there is a problem here with the way you are arguing. I think you are proposing that glutamate has a redness quality (or if not glutamate, some other structure in the brain). It is OK to propose this as a hypothesis, but then in scientific discourse the hypothesis is challenged. My challenge is that the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were true it would lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, but who would never be able to notice the change. This is self-contradictory because, whatever else we might say about qualia, being able to notice our own qualia and notice when they change is a necessary part of the qualia deal; if you get rid of this aspect of qualia then you may as well say that qualia do not exist. In other words, if you are right and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then qualia do not exist. You say below that functionalism leads to the "hard problem" of consciousness, which you don't like. I don't see how it leads to the "hard problem" any more than structure-specific qualia, but even if it does, that's just too bad - because structure-specific qualia leads to the elimination of the qualia that you and I know we have. This argument is independent of any particular details of brain function; it could have validly been made in a bygone era before the existence of neurons was even suspected. > Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get a kick > out of this. He was the first person that helped me understand how all > this knowledge in the brain stuff could work back in the 80s. He may have > some better proposed theories about what qualitative not glutamate and not > glycene may be, including what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for > more context, you may want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I > mean by the simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: > redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 where I describe how to eff > the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible theoretical way. > > > "*The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.*" > Thomas A. Edison > > > Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, > but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the > ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) > qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too. > > So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative > discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead to > verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative discern-ability in any > theoretical testable way, there needs to be at least 2 qualitative > representation of knowledge or knowing. When you talk to me, you should > use simple words like glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to > represent this objective and subjective qualitative functionality > representing knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified > (though evidently this particular example theory is already falsified in > some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of qualitative theory). > But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben describes it this way: > > *<<<<* > *Not some/thing/. * > > *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark > would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an > adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but > there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * > > *More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an > information-process. * > > *So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there > must be an information process that is that knowing". * > *>>>>* > > So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not > glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the neuro > scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" is the process > of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know what qualitative > distinguishable functionality is with this, on the detectable objective > side, and it is important to have the ability to tell the qualitative > difference between redness and greenness on the subjective side. This > qualitative discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the > system the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of > strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report qualitative > difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is the process of knowing > redness which is objectively detect-ably different than the process of > knowing greenness. This can be true, even if it isn't possible to truly > eff the difference - John would probably say you must change from Ben or > John to know all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and > you must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. > While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively detect-ably > impossible. > > And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly proposed to > be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding neuron. Or maybe, if > you must maybe call it a binding - not a neuron. Whatever it is test-ably > theoretically proposed to be, it is the ability for the system to be aware > of and report, or fire, only when at least 2 different objective and > subjective things are qualitatively different. It has the ability to > combine simple or elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex > composite qualia or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural > intelligence. > > I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that champions > "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro substitutuion argument, > should think of "not glutamate" as. They will always assert that it will > "arise" some place at some "functional" level, outside of wherever you > propose to do the physical substitution test. They have a little trick > that will always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical > theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no matter > where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as I can see, the > only possibility they have is that it "arises" in some impossible to > objectively detect (else they will swap it out using this little trick) > "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. > > Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this little > trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with glutamate, to keep > the "binding neuron from functioning the same" before and after > substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate receptor) with glycene (and it's > glycene receptor). > > So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative > difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding neuron is > firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis does the neural > substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not glutamate receptor) with not > glycene (and a not glycene receptor), even though you now have not glycene > chemically reacting in both of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it > is incorrectly doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they > are different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not > glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have removed the > necessary functional ability of the system to fire correctly and report > qualitative discernment of not glutamate and not glycene. If you preserve > the necessary qualitative discernible functionality (and the ability to > verbally report such) with your theory, the system must report the > qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this > little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the very > qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no matter where you > propose it might testably physically resides. No matter what you theorize > that not glutamate and not glycene may be, and how it might be physically > distinguished, Stathis and James will attempt to use some physical trick > like not glutamate receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the > necessary objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting > in all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability to > detect or discern it. > > Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability function, > theoretically possibly by physically or chemically coupling the two > synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's ability to be aware of > when one synapse has the reference quality key like not glycene > functionality and the lock like not glycene receptor functionality and the > other synapse has either the same or the not glutamate and a not glutamate > receptor, so the system can be aware of, and correctly report whether they > lock and key like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice > that by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing > correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are the same > the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively detect not > glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and there by objectively > eff the ineffable - if science is able to prove your proposed not glutamate > and not glycene, to be the real reliable for everyone and every subjective > computer thing. Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the > experimental neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to > effingly test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, > how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, to know > how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply because they are > miss interpreting the abstracted information about what they are observing, > and be able to eff the ineffable. I bet this will happen relatively > rapidly, once experimentalists understand this kind of qualitative discern > ability theory, and how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are > observing. > > > So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is there > any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative discern-ability > theory so that more neuro scientists can more easily relate to it? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: > > John K Clark wrote: > > "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part > interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall > behaviour of the system" > > Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. > > He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that > it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, > whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. > > I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has been > saying. > > Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think > there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at > least it's understandable now. > > Thanks, John. > > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. >> Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. >> >> >> As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the >> prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we >> experience. >> > It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is > necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument > is this: > > A. The brain is a system made of parts. > B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. > C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its > neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the > same way. > D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia > would change but the behaviour would not. > E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. > > Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected > - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. > > That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical > world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and > white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, > glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness > quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be > aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world > there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily > inverted. > > > The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can > understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro > substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a > simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively > interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to > apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that > is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, > what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the > single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, > once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by > miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) > and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, > qualitatively correctly. > > > Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified > theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if you > believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds or > paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and John > Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the > ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be > approachable via objective or sharable science? > > Brent > > > > On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise >> so we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our >> misunderstanding is captured by you with this: >> >> On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to >> consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that >> if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the >> qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which >> I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. >> >> >> Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are >> saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first >> want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable >> behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even >> if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or >> removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move >> beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I >> can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first >> understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, >> this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this >> initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be >> able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of >> doing neuro substitution. >> >> Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 >> element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a >> unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative >> representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is >> binding the two different representations into one composite experience. >> The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative >> representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on >> which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could >> lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively >> the same or not. >> >> So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the >> following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of >> the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the >> functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is >> performing the function of binding these two representations of information >> together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd >> awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. >> >> You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first >> focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* >> then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of >> qualia is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of >> the functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. >> >> Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective >> way of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that >> has or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene >> that performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with >> subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with >> objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd >> part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's >> sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - >> outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge >> are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way >> it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make >> one composite qualitative experience. >> >> Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the >> glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison >> neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison >> functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate >> that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it >> be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the >> redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge >> are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet >> you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are >> different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro >> substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it >> being the source of all the "hard" problems. >> > > I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond > to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what > neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that > are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate > receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell > membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach > non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes > described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of > this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, > leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic > receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the > receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, > potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes > the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of > transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then > cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and > ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, > triggering the next neuron in the chain. > > Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - > glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to > glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have > similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels > when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard > to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles > will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. > "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that > the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries > look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't > agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of > events I have described I have missed something and explain how the > glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can > possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. > > If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in >> some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other >> abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be >> reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a >> neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison >> functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being >> compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison >> functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I >> don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically >> possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a >> binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it >> is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution >> occurs. >> >> If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring >> and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method >> of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious >> what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having >> two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one >> that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and >> the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We >> will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta >> comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the >> qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so >> you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what >> it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always >> indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other >> after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this >> *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on >> with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro >> substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable >> behavior*. >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 > > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 23:21:17 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:21:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] tao In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > Here a good explanation: > > http://www.taoistic.com/tao-dao.htm > > ?Very helpful -thanks! bill w ? > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:33 PM, CryptAxe wrote: > >> I cant answer your question but I am very interested in seeing the >> answer. I just wanted to say you should also check out The Tao of Pooh, and >> Tao Te Cheng if you haven't already! >> >> On Feb 21, 2017 12:30 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" >> wrote: >> >>> Just got my copy of the Tao is Silent, and now a question or two: >>> >>> As we all know, no Chinese language has an alphabet. So we must >>> translate Chinese characters to our alphabet. So far, so good. >>> >>> So why is it that Tao is pronounced as if it were Dao? Why not spell it >>> as it sounds- phoenetically? >>> >>> (Sorry, have to include my little joke here: In the movie Smokey and >>> the Bandit, the sheriff asks another sheriff, a black man, a question, and >>> the black guy says "Is that germane?" And the sheriff, Jackie Gleason, >>> says "What the hell do the Germans have to do with it?" And so, my little >>> addition: what do the Phoenecians have to do with alternate spelling?) >>> >>> And how about Deng, as is Mao Tse? Pronounced as if it were spelled >>> Dung. Now I can see this one in a sense. So as not to slur Mao, we spell >>> Deng so as not to give offense. I have no idea if this is the reason , or >>> what. >>> >>> Does anyone? >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 23:28:06 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 16:28:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Bill, Thanks for jumping in this very exciting (at least for me) conversation. My preferred theory of qualitative consciousness (mostly because it is the simplest and easiest to understand, qualitatively) is that it is a neuro transmitter like glutamate that has the elemental redness quality we can experience and the neuro transmitter glycene that has the greenness quality. When we have a composite qualia experience (i.e. when we look at a red strawberry with green leaves) there is also a binding system that binds all these diverse qualities together into a unified experience. I think of this as a binding neuron, that can be swapped out with something different during a neural substitution. My current theory, because of what Stathis taught me about how neurotransmitters react with their corresponding chemical receptors in a lock and key way is what is actually responsible for redness and greenness. So I think it is actually most likely the chemical reactions in the synapses that are responsible for the various elemental qualitative experiences we have. The best way I've found to think about it is imagine a diorama like model of your visual surroundings laid out in your brain. There is a neuron in your visual cortex that represents every qualitative surface voxel (3D pixel) For example, if that neuron is firing with glutamate, it is representing a voxel of redness at that location in your visual field. If it is firing with glycene, it is representing a point on the surface of a leaf or a greenness experience of knowledge. I'm not to educated about experimental neuro physiology, so this theory is more than likely not true, but it does help to understand how qualitative experimental theory might work by providing at least a simplified theoretical possobility that can be tested for and falsified, experimentally. Now, this simplistic theory doesn't work and is too simple for people that have more sophisticated working hypotheses. This would include people like John Clark and Ben Zaiboc. So, for them, it is better to think of redness as a quality of some kind of more complex system process, or a verb instead of a thing like glutamate chemically reacting in a synapse. Ben and John, did I capture your views correctly? But either way, given this type of qualitative theory, my prediction is that all this is just testable theories, waiting for the experimentallest to prove which of us is predicting THE ONE true theory. Brent On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 3:56 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> ? >> *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark >> would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an >> adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but >> there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * >> > > ?------------------- > > Here I am again, butting into a conversation I don't understand. BUT - > what is meant by 'thing' and does it matter what we call knowledge? If it > is more of a verb than a noun, how does that help us understand it? If you > want to get away from an analogy like 'knowledge is a thing sitting in a > folder waiting to be accessed, like your dental xrays', then I still want > to know how that helps. > > bill w? > >> ? >> >> Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, >> >> >> James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed him in >> this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of more iterations >> here since he was last CCed, we might have achieved a breakthrough (and >> this time I'm more sure than the last 100 or so times I thought this! ;) >> and I couldn't have done it without all your help. If you guys think >> you've told me your ever improving arguments too many times, James has >> given me Stathis' nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of >> times in ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James >> continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective side, you >> need to do something like distinguish redness from greenness, and on the >> objective side, the same thing will appear to be something like >> distinguishing between the qualitative nature of something physical like >> (not, see below) glutamate and (not, see below) glycene neuro >> transmitters. On the subjective side, all we know of not glutamate, is >> it's redness quality. So thanks, everyone, for all your patient help over >> so many years with all this. >> >> >> Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get a kick >> out of this. He was the first person that helped me understand how all >> this knowledge in the brain stuff could work back in the 80s. He may have >> some better proposed theories about what qualitative not glutamate and not >> glycene may be, including what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for >> more context, you may want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I >> mean by the simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: >> redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 where I describe how to eff >> the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible theoretical way. >> >> >> "*The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.*" >> Thomas A. Edison >> >> >> Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, >> but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the >> ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) >> qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too. >> >> So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative >> discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead to >> verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative discern-ability in any >> theoretical testable way, there needs to be at least 2 qualitative >> representation of knowledge or knowing. When you talk to me, you should >> use simple words like glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to >> represent this objective and subjective qualitative functionality >> representing knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified >> (though evidently this particular example theory is already falsified in >> some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of qualitative theory). >> But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben describes it this way: >> >> *<<<<* >> *Not some/thing/. * >> >> *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark >> would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an >> adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but >> there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * >> >> *More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an >> information-process. * >> >> *So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there >> must be an information process that is that knowing". * >> *>>>>* >> >> So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not >> glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the neuro >> scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" is the process >> of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know what qualitative >> distinguishable functionality is with this, on the detectable objective >> side, and it is important to have the ability to tell the qualitative >> difference between redness and greenness on the subjective side. This >> qualitative discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the >> system the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of >> strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report qualitative >> difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is the process of knowing >> redness which is objectively detect-ably different than the process of >> knowing greenness. This can be true, even if it isn't possible to truly >> eff the difference - John would probably say you must change from Ben or >> John to know all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and >> you must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. >> While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively detect-ably >> impossible. >> >> And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly proposed to >> be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding neuron. Or maybe, if >> you must maybe call it a binding - not a neuron. Whatever it is test-ably >> theoretically proposed to be, it is the ability for the system to be aware >> of and report, or fire, only when at least 2 different objective and >> subjective things are qualitatively different. It has the ability to >> combine simple or elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex >> composite qualia or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural >> intelligence. >> >> I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that champions >> "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro substitutuion argument, >> should think of "not glutamate" as. They will always assert that it will >> "arise" some place at some "functional" level, outside of wherever you >> propose to do the physical substitution test. They have a little trick >> that will always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical >> theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no matter >> where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as I can see, the >> only possibility they have is that it "arises" in some impossible to >> objectively detect (else they will swap it out using this little trick) >> "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. >> >> Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this little >> trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with glutamate, to keep >> the "binding neuron from functioning the same" before and after >> substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate receptor) with glycene (and it's >> glycene receptor). >> >> So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative >> difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding neuron is >> firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis does the neural >> substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not glutamate receptor) with not >> glycene (and a not glycene receptor), even though you now have not glycene >> chemically reacting in both of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it >> is incorrectly doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they >> are different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not >> glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have removed the >> necessary functional ability of the system to fire correctly and report >> qualitative discernment of not glutamate and not glycene. If you preserve >> the necessary qualitative discernible functionality (and the ability to >> verbally report such) with your theory, the system must report the >> qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this >> little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the very >> qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no matter where you >> propose it might testably physically resides. No matter what you theorize >> that not glutamate and not glycene may be, and how it might be physically >> distinguished, Stathis and James will attempt to use some physical trick >> like not glutamate receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the >> necessary objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting >> in all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability to >> detect or discern it. >> >> Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability >> function, theoretically possibly by physically or chemically coupling the >> two synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's ability to be aware of >> when one synapse has the reference quality key like not glycene >> functionality and the lock like not glycene receptor functionality and the >> other synapse has either the same or the not glutamate and a not glutamate >> receptor, so the system can be aware of, and correctly report whether they >> lock and key like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice >> that by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing >> correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are the same >> the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively detect not >> glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and there by objectively >> eff the ineffable - if science is able to prove your proposed not glutamate >> and not glycene, to be the real reliable for everyone and every subjective >> computer thing. Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the >> experimental neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to >> effingly test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, >> how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, to know >> how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply because they are >> miss interpreting the abstracted information about what they are observing, >> and be able to eff the ineffable. I bet this will happen relatively >> rapidly, once experimentalists understand this kind of qualitative discern >> ability theory, and how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are >> observing. >> >> >> So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is there >> any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative discern-ability >> theory so that more neuro scientists can more easily relate to it? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: >> >> John K Clark wrote: >> >> "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part >> interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall >> behaviour of the system" >> >> Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. >> >> He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that >> it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, >> whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. >> >> I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has >> been saying. >> >> Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think >> there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at >> least it's understandable now. >> >> Thanks, John. >> >> >> Ben Zaiboc >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Hi Stathis, >>> >>> You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. >>> Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. >>> >>> >>> As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the >>> prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we >>> experience. >>> >> It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is >> necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument >> is this: >> >> A. The brain is a system made of parts. >> B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. >> C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its >> neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the >> same way. >> D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia >> would change but the behaviour would not. >> E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. >> >> Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected >> - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. >> >> That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical >> world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and >> white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, >> glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness >> quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be >> aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world >> there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily >> inverted. >> >> >> The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can >> understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro >> substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a >> simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively >> interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to >> apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that >> is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, >> what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the >> single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, >> once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by >> miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) >> and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, >> qualitatively correctly. >> >> >> Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified >> theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if >> you believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds >> or paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and >> John Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the >> ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be >> approachable via objective or sharable science? >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Stathis, >>> >>> >>> Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise >>> so we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our >>> misunderstanding is captured by you with this: >>> >>> On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >>> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to >>> consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that >>> if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the >>> qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which >>> I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. >>> >>> >>> Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are >>> saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first >>> want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable >>> behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even >>> if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or >>> removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move >>> beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I >>> can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first >>> understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, >>> this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this >>> initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be >>> able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of >>> doing neuro substitution. >>> >>> Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 >>> element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a >>> unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative >>> representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is >>> binding the two different representations into one composite experience. >>> The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative >>> representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on >>> which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could >>> lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively >>> the same or not. >>> >>> So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the >>> following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of >>> the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the >>> functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is >>> performing the function of binding these two representations of information >>> together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd >>> awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. >>> >>> You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first >>> focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* >>> then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of >>> qualia is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of >>> the functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. >>> >>> Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective >>> way of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that >>> has or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene >>> that performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with >>> subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with >>> objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd >>> part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's >>> sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - >>> outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge >>> are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way >>> it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make >>> one composite qualitative experience. >>> >>> Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace >>> the glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the >>> comparison neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important >>> comparison functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only >>> glutamate that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating >>> that it be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably >>> performing the redness functionality we know so well). Both >>> representations of knowledge are now the same qualitative glycene (or the >>> greenness functionality), yet you are asserting that the output is still >>> indicating that the two are different. This removal of the correct >>> functionality as you do the neuro substitution, is why I can't accept your >>> line of reasoning, along with it being the source of all the "hard" >>> problems. >>> >> >> I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond >> to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what >> neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that >> are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate >> receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell >> membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach >> non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes >> described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of >> this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, >> leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic >> receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the >> receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, >> potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes >> the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of >> transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then >> cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and >> ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, >> triggering the next neuron in the chain. >> >> Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - >> glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate >> receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to >> glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate >> receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have >> similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels >> when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard >> to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles >> will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. >> "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that >> the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries >> look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't >> agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of >> events I have described I have missed something and explain how the >> glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can >> possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. >> >> If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in >>> some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other >>> abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be >>> reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a >>> neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison >>> functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being >>> compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison >>> functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I >>> don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically >>> possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a >>> binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it >>> is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution >>> occurs. >>> >>> If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring >>> and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method >>> of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious >>> what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having >>> two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one >>> that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and >>> the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We >>> will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta >>> comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the >>> qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so >>> you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what >>> it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always >>> indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other >>> after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this >>> *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on >>> with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro >>> substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable >>> behavior*. >>> >>> Does that help? >>> >>> >>> Brent Allsop >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 01:56:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:56:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > Here I am again, butting into a conversation I don't understand. BUT - > what is meant by 'thing' and does it matter what we call knowledge? If it > is more of a verb than a noun, how does that help us understand it? > It makes a difference. Atoms are nouns, the ways atoms behave are adjectives. If you are a noun then you are quite literally not the man you were last year because all your old atoms have been exchanged for new atoms. But if you are an adjective and you are the way that atoms behave when they are organized in a Williamflynnwallace ? ian way then the idea of continuous personal identity makes some sense; and incidentally as long as a record ?remains ? of how those atoms are organized, through Cryonics or some other means, then you will ?not? be irreversibly dead. On another issue I'd be interested if anybody disagrees with what I said a few posts ago: ? "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part interacts with other parts then those internal changes make no change to the overall behavior of the system." John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 03:23:11 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:23:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45538938-1686-1edb-9db3-7f3cccad38ce@gmail.com> Hi John, Yes, there could be profound changes to the qualitative nature of the part/system. For example, if you take a "part" that includes my 3 or more components that are required for qualitative discern-ability (or even just the binding neuron), the part could have or be detecting inverted subjective qualia, but still make the same signals to other parts as to whether the two representations of knowledge are the same or not. Additionally, If you have a part or binding mechanism that could be neuro substituted the way Stathis proposes, it would lose the ability to properly detect qualitative differences, when the representations of knowledge are inverted, as it would not have any correlation to the actual qualities of the not glutamate or not glycene after the substitution. On 2/21/2017 6:56 PM, John Clark wrote: > On another issue I'd be interested if anybody disagrees with what I > said a few posts ago: ? > > > "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part > interacts with other parts then those internal changes make no change > to the overall behavior of the system." > > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 03:44:16 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 20:44:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Hi Stathis, Dang, I really thought this iteration of the argument, if you fully understood it, would at least have some effect on your insistence that the neuro substitution argument is not completely flawed. These statements of yours seem obviously completely wrong and indicate you still don't fully understand what I'm trying to say about qualitative discern-ability and how the binding neuron can't work the way you say describe, and how it must behave in the way I say it needs to - to achieve the necessary subjective or objective qualitative discern-ability functionality: /"the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were true it would lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, but who would never be able to notice the change." / and /"if you are right and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then qualia do not exist"/ Could you describe why you think these are in a little more detail, or provide an example, as I don't see how anyone could think either of these could be true? And could you tell me if the most recent description of my qualitative discern-ability theory had any effect, whatsoever, on the way you think about the neuro substitution and the qualitative nature of consciousness? Do you understand what I mean by objective and subjective qualitative discern-ability are necessary given what we (I, sorry John) subjectively experience of qualitative knowledge? If you don't understand it, probably nobody else will be able to understand it. :( I guess we're not done, after all. Oh well, thanks for still not giving up on trying to understand what I'm trying to say, and or helping me to better understand the way you think. I sure don't want to have to resort to just waiting for the experimental neuroscientists to prove to us which of us closer to the true theory of the qualitative nature of consciousness. Brent On 2/21/2017 4:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 22 February 2017 at 08:56, Brent Allsop >wrote: > > > Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, > > > James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed > him in this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of > more iterations here since he was last CCed, we might have > achieved a breakthrough (and this time I'm more sure than the last > 100 or so times I thought this! ;) and I couldn't have done it > without all your help. If you guys think you've told me your ever > improving arguments too many times, James has given me Stathis' > nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of times in > ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James > continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective > side, you need to do something like distinguish redness from > greenness, and on the objective side, the same thing will appear > to be something like distinguishing between the qualitative nature > of something physical like (not, see below) glutamate and (not, > see below) glycene neuro transmitters. On the subjective side, > all we know of not glutamate, is it's redness quality. So thanks, > everyone, for all your patient help over so many years with all this. > > Perhaps there is a problem here with the way you are arguing. I think > you are proposing that glutamate has a redness quality (or if not > glutamate, some other structure in the brain). It is OK to propose > this as a hypothesis, but then in scientific discourse the hypothesis > is challenged. My challenge is that the hypothesis is > self-contradictory, since if it were true it would lead to a subject > whose qualia could change in a gross way, but who would never be able > to notice the change. This is self-contradictory because, whatever > else we might say about qualia, being able to notice our own qualia > and notice when they change is a necessary part of the qualia deal; if > you get rid of this aspect of qualia then you may as well say that > qualia do not exist. In other words, if you are right and qualia are > due to a certain brain structure, then qualia do not exist. You say > below that functionalism leads to the "hard problem" of consciousness, > which you don't like. I don't see how it leads to the "hard problem" > any more than structure-specific qualia, but even if it does, that's > just too bad - because structure-specific qualia leads to the > elimination of the qualia that you and I know we have. This argument > is independent of any particular details of brain function; it could > have validly been made in a bygone era before the existence of neurons > was even suspected. > > Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get > a kick out of this. He was the first person that helped me > understand how all this knowledge in the brain stuff could work > back in the 80s. He may have some better proposed theories about > what qualitative not glutamate and not glycene may be, including > what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for more context, you may > want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I mean by the > simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: > redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 > where I describe how > to eff the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible > theoretical way. > > > "/The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more > time./" Thomas A. Edison > > > Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described > below, but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, > that is the ability to verbally report (as in outside the black > box behavior) qualitative differences inside the black box is > possible and important too. > > > So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative > discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead > to verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative > discern-ability in any theoretical testable way, there needs to be > at least 2 qualitative representation of knowledge or knowing. > When you talk to me, you should use simple words like > glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to represent this > objective and subjective qualitative functionality representing > knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified > (though evidently this particular example theory is already > falsified in some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of > qualitative theory). But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben > describes it this way: > > /<<< //Not some/thing/. // > //// > //I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K > Clark would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb > or an adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a > knowledge', but there is such a thing as 'knowing'. // > //// > //More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an > information-process. // > //// > //So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know > something, there must be an information process that is that > knowing". // > ////>>>>/ > > So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not > glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the > neuro scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" > is the process of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know > what qualitative distinguishable functionality is with this, on > the detectable objective side, and it is important to have the > ability to tell the qualitative difference between redness and > greenness on the subjective side. This qualitative > discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the system > the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of > strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report > qualitative difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is > the process of knowing redness which is objectively detect-ably > different than the process of knowing greenness. This can be > true, even if it isn't possible to truly eff the difference - > John would probably say you must change from Ben or John to know > all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and you > must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. > While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively > detect-ably impossible. > > And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly > proposed to be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding > neuron. Or maybe, if you must maybe call it a binding - not a > neuron. Whatever it is test-ably theoretically proposed to be, it > is the ability for the system to be aware of and report, or fire, > only when at least 2 different objective and subjective things are > qualitatively different. It has the ability to combine simple or > elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex composite qualia > or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural intelligence. > > I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that > champions "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro > substitutuion argument, should think of "not glutamate" as. They > will always assert that it will "arise" some place at some > "functional" level, outside of wherever you propose to do the > physical substitution test. They have a little trick that will > always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical > theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no > matter where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as > I can see, the only possibility they have is that it "arises" in > some impossible to objectively detect (else they will swap it out > using this little trick) "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. > > Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this > little trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with > glutamate, to keep the "binding neuron from functioning the same" > before and after substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate > receptor) with glycene (and it's glycene receptor). > > So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative > difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding > neuron is firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis > does the neural substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not > glutamate receptor) with not glycene (and a not glycene receptor), > even though you now have not glycene chemically reacting in both > of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it is incorrectly > doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they are > different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not > glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have > removed the necessary functional ability of the system to fire > correctly and report qualitative discernment of not glutamate and > not glycene. If you preserve the necessary qualitative > discernible functionality (and the ability to verbally report > such) with your theory, the system must report the qualitative > difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this > little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the > very qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no > matter where you propose it might testably physically resides. No > matter what you theorize that not glutamate and not glycene may > be, and how it might be physically distinguished, Stathis and > James will attempt to use some physical trick like not glutamate > receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the necessary > objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting in > all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability > to detect or discern it. > > Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability > function, theoretically possibly by physically or chemically > coupling the two synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's > ability to be aware of when one synapse has the reference quality > key like not glycene functionality and the lock like not glycene > receptor functionality and the other synapse has either the same > or the not glutamate and a not glutamate receptor, so the system > can be aware of, and correctly report whether they lock and key > like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice that > by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing > correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are > the same the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively > detect not glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and > there by objectively eff the ineffable - if science is able to > prove your proposed not glutamate and not glycene, to be the real > reliable for everyone and every subjective computer thing. > Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the experimental > neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to effingly > test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, > how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, > to know how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply > because they are miss interpreting the abstracted information > about what they are observing, and be able to eff the ineffable. > I bet this will happen relatively rapidly, once experimentalists > understand this kind of qualitative discern ability theory, and > how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing. > > > So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is > there any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative > discern-ability theory so that more neuro scientists can more > easily relate to it? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: >> John K Clark wrote: >> >> "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that >> part interacts with other parts then they make no change to the >> overall behaviour of the system" >> >> Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. >> >> He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the >> opinion that it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes >> of interacting parts, whereas the rest of us don't, as long as >> the interactions remain the same. >> >> I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent >> has been saying. >> >> Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I >> think there are very good logical and empirical reasons for >> thinking this, but at least it's understandable now. >> >> Thanks, John. >> >> >> Ben Zaiboc >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> >> On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You obviously know more than I know about how neuro >> transmitters work. Thanks for helping me to better >> understand this type of stuff. >> >> >> As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies >> the prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness >> quality we experience. >> >> It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or >> physics is necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. >> The general argument is this: >> >> A. The brain is a system made of parts. >> B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. >> C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts >> with its neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole >> will behave in the same way. >> D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the >> qualia would change but the behaviour would not. >> E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. >> >> Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be >> detected - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular >> substrate or physics. >> >> That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified >> theoretical world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 >> colors: red, green and white. And in that simplified world, >> glutamate has the redness quality, glycene has the greenness >> quality, aspartate that has the whiteness quality, and it is one >> neuron that binds them all together, so you can be aware of them >> all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world there >> are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily >> inverted. >> >> >> The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If >> one can understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, >> and how neuro substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and >> how people in such a simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by >> properly qualitatively interpreting abstracted observation >> knowledge - then they should be able to apply the same >> qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that is >> required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real >> world, what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, >> aspartate, and the single neuron binding system. That job is for >> the experimentalists to do, once they understand how to test for >> it by no longer being qualia blind (by miss interpreting >> abstracted observation information as they all do now) and effing >> the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, >> qualitatively correctly. >> >> >> Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified >> theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 >> . But it may not >> help if you believe there are not elemental qualities out of >> which our brain builds or paints composite qualitative >> experiences with. It sounds like you and John Clark agree on >> this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the ineffable >> is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be >> approachable via objective or sharable science? >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> >>> On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Stathis, >>> >>> >>> Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be >>> as concise so we can make progress with this. I think the >>> key point in our misunderstanding is captured by you with this: >>> >>> >>> On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>>> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >>>> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing >>>> necessary to consider in order to replicate *observable >>>> behaviour*. The argument is that if you ignore qualia and >>>> just replicate *observable behaviour* then the qualia will >>>> also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this >>>> which I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the >>>> glutamate/glycine swap. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what >>> you are saying, but we both believe that the other is >>> missing the point. You first want to focus on: "If you >>> ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* then >>> the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even >>> if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still >>> missing or removing some important functionality. In the >>> past you never want to move beyond this, because or until >>> this has been settled. The problem is, I can't point out the >>> required functionality being removed, until you first >>> understand and agree with some other things in the >>> qualitative theory. So, this time, could you move beyond >>> that, at least for a bit and digest this initial >>> description, then given that understanding (if you agree), >>> I'll be able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept >>> this functionalist way of doing neuro substitution. >>> >>> Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with >>> our simple 3 element system. The system is experiencing >>> both redness and greenness as a unified composite >>> qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative >>> representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the >>> system that is binding the two different representations >>> into one composite experience. The fact that the system is >>> aware of both of these qualitative representations at the >>> same time, is the critical base functionality on which the >>> comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that >>> could lead to one saying they are consciously aware that >>> they are qualitatively the same or not. >>> >>> So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree >>> with the following? There must be something that is >>> performing the functionality of the redness experience, and >>> there is something that is performing the functionality of >>> the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is performing >>> the function of binding these two representations of >>> information together to make a composite experience - >>> enabling the 3rd awareness/comparison neuron to indicate >>> whether they are the same or not. >>> >>> You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting >>> to first focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate >>> *observable behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily >>> be replicated." But this ignoring of qualia is the problem, >>> and you end up removing the most important parts of the >>> functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. >>> >>> Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the >>> objective way of observing things, and for the time being >>> assume it is glutamate that has or performs the redness >>> experience functionality, and it is glycene that performs >>> the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with >>> subjective observation, we would experience a redness >>> detector and with objective observation we would see a >>> glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd part of the system (we >>> are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's sake) is >>> basically an objective and subjective comparison system - >>> outputting an indicator as to whether the two >>> representations of knowledge are functioning the same or >>> not. This functionality derived from the way it binds >>> together awareness of the two representations of knowledge >>> to make one composite qualitative experience. >>> >>> Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and >>> you replace the glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, >>> then assert that the comparison neuron will behave the same, >>> you are removing the important comparison functionality, or >>> simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate that >>> reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating >>> that it be something else, yet to be discovered, that is >>> reliably performing the redness functionality we know so >>> well). Both representations of knowledge are now the same >>> qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet >>> you are asserting that the output is still indicating that >>> the two are different. This removal of the correct >>> functionality as you do the neuro substitution, is why I >>> can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it being the >>> source of all the "hard" problems. >>> >>> >>> I started answering point by point but I think it is best to >>> just respond to this point, because it seems that you are >>> ignoring what neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters >>> are small molecules that are released from the presynaptic >>> neuron and bind to the appropriate receptor on the postsynaptic >>> neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell membrane which have >>> special sites to which neurotransmitters attach non-covalently >>> (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes described >>> as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of >>> this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different >>> shape, leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With >>> so-called ionotropic receptors the binding of the >>> neurotransmitter opens up channels in the receptor allowing ions >>> to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, potassium or calcium >>> ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes the voltage >>> across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of >>> transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which >>> can then cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of >>> the neuron, and ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at >>> the end of the axon, triggering the next neuron in the chain. >>> >>> Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't >>> work - glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we >>> swap the glutamate receptors for glycine receptors it won't work >>> - glutamate will not bind to glycine receptors. But if we swap >>> glutamate for glycine and glutamate receptors for glycine >>> receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have similar >>> properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels >>> when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way >>> in regard to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream >>> neurons and the muscles will behave in the same way, and the >>> subject will behave in the same way. "The subject will behave in >>> the same way" means, among other things, that the subject will >>> say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries look red >>> to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't >>> agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed >>> chain of events I have described I have missed something and >>> explain how the glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else >>> in the brain the same) can possibly lead to the subject saying >>> that his qualia have changed. >>> >>> If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise >>> or emerge in some other way or some other abstracted level, >>> then it is this other abstracted location of qualia that >>> can't be ignored, and must be able to be reliably compared >>> via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a neuro >>> substitution at this level, with the required qualia >>> comparison functionality, not the level you are talking >>> about, where the qualia being compared is being removed. If >>> you are going to claim that a comparison functionality can >>> be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I don't >>> see how this could be done), then provide at least one >>> theoretically possible description of such (as I have done >>> with glutamate, glycene, and a binder neuron to make a >>> composite experience), and with that, whatever it is, it >>> will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural >>> substitution occurs. >>> >>> If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead >>> of ignoring and removing qualia comparison, you provide any >>> testable theoretical method of really doing the function of >>> qualitative comparison, it can be obvious what is going on >>> during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having two >>> sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison >>> systems, one that doesn't change and is for constant >>> reference comparison purposes, and the other one is the one >>> we will perform the neuro substitution on. We will bind >>> these two systems with the same provided binding system in a >>> meta comparison functioning system which will monitor and >>> compare all the qualities, as the neural substitution takes >>> place on one of the systems, so you can prove to everyone, >>> both objectively and subjectively, exactly what it is going >>> on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always >>> indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert >>> of the other after one of the neuro substitution steps. If >>> you duplicate all this *observable behavior*, including the >>> meta awareness of what is going on with both systems, there >>> will be no hard problems when it is neuro substituted since >>> you are not removing the most important *observable behavior*. >>> >>> Does that help? >>> >>> >>> Brent Allsop >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 04:26:55 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 04:26:55 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> References: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed., 22 Feb. 2017 at 2:45 pm, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > > Dang, I really thought this iteration of the argument, if you fully > understood it, would at least have some effect on your insistence that the > neuro substitution argument is not completely flawed. > > > These statements of yours seem obviously completely wrong and indicate you > still don't fully understand what I'm trying to say about qualitative > discern-ability and how the binding neuron can't work the way you say > describe, and how it must behave in the way I say it needs to - to achieve > the necessary subjective or objective qualitative discern-ability > functionality: > > *"the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were true it would > lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, but who would > never be able to notice the change." * > > and > > *"if you are right and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then > qualia do not exist"* > > > Could you describe why you think these are in a little more detail, or > provide an example, as I don't see how anyone could think either of these > could be true? > > > And could you tell me if the most recent description of my qualitative > discern-ability theory had any effect, whatsoever, on the way you think > about the neuro substitution and the qualitative nature of consciousness? > Do you understand what I mean by objective and subjective qualitative > discern-ability are necessary given what we (I, sorry John) subjectively > experience of qualitative knowledge? If you don't understand it, probably > nobody else will be able to understand it. :( I guess we're not done, > after all. Oh well, thanks for still not giving up on trying to understand > what I'm trying to say, and or helping me to better understand the way you > think. I sure don't want to have to resort to just waiting for the > experimental neuroscientists to prove to us which of us closer to the true > theory of the qualitative nature of consciousness. > But there is NO experimental result that would make any difference to the argument. To give some emotional distance I have tried non-biological examples. If the power supply of your computer is replaced with a different power supply that produces exactly the same voltage and current, is it possible that your programs will run differently? If the cylinders in your car engine are replaced with cylinders of a different material with the same dimensions, density, melting point, and every other relevant physical parameter is it possible that your car will run differently? Brent > > > > On 2/21/2017 4:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On 22 February 2017 at 08:56, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, > > > James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed him in > this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of more iterations > here since he was last CCed, we might have achieved a breakthrough (and > this time I'm more sure than the last 100 or so times I thought this! ;) > and I couldn't have done it without all your help. If you guys think > you've told me your ever improving arguments too many times, James has > given me Stathis' nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of > times in ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James > continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective side, you > need to do something like distinguish redness from greenness, and on the > objective side, the same thing will appear to be something like > distinguishing between the qualitative nature of something physical like > (not, see below) glutamate and (not, see below) glycene neuro > transmitters. On the subjective side, all we know of not glutamate, is > it's redness quality. So thanks, everyone, for all your patient help over > so many years with all this. > > Perhaps there is a problem here with the way you are arguing. I think you > are proposing that glutamate has a redness quality (or if not glutamate, > some other structure in the brain). It is OK to propose this as a > hypothesis, but then in scientific discourse the hypothesis is challenged. > My challenge is that the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were > true it would lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, > but who would never be able to notice the change. This is > self-contradictory because, whatever else we might say about qualia, being > able to notice our own qualia and notice when they change is a necessary > part of the qualia deal; if you get rid of this aspect of qualia then you > may as well say that qualia do not exist. In other words, if you are right > and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then qualia do not exist. > You say below that functionalism leads to the "hard problem" of > consciousness, which you don't like. I don't see how it leads to the "hard > problem" any more than structure-specific qualia, but even if it does, > that's just too bad - because structure-specific qualia leads to the > elimination of the qualia that you and I know we have. This argument is > independent of any particular details of brain function; it could have > validly been made in a bygone era before the existence of neurons was even > suspected. > > > Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get a kick > out of this. He was the first person that helped me understand how all > this knowledge in the brain stuff could work back in the 80s. He may have > some better proposed theories about what qualitative not glutamate and not > glycene may be, including what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for > more context, you may want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I > mean by the simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: > redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 where I describe how to eff > the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible theoretical way. > > > "*The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.*" > Thomas A. Edison > > > Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, > but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the > ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) > qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too. > > So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative > discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead to > verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative discern-ability in any > theoretical testable way, there needs to be at least 2 qualitative > representation of knowledge or knowing. When you talk to me, you should > use simple words like glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to > represent this objective and subjective qualitative functionality > representing knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified > (though evidently this particular example theory is already falsified in > some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of qualitative theory). > But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben describes it this way: > > *<<<<* > *Not some/thing/. * > > *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark > would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an > adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but > there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * > > *More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an > information-process. * > > *So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there > must be an information process that is that knowing". * > *>>>>* > > So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not > glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the neuro > scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" is the process > of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know what qualitative > distinguishable functionality is with this, on the detectable objective > side, and it is important to have the ability to tell the qualitative > difference between redness and greenness on the subjective side. This > qualitative discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the > system the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of > strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report qualitative > difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is the process of knowing > redness which is objectively detect-ably different than the process of > knowing greenness. This can be true, even if it isn't possible to truly > eff the difference - John would probably say you must change from Ben or > John to know all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and > you must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. > While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively detect-ably > impossible. > > And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly proposed to > be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding neuron. Or maybe, if > you must maybe call it a binding - not a neuron. Whatever it is test-ably > theoretically proposed to be, it is the ability for the system to be aware > of and report, or fire, only when at least 2 different objective and > subjective things are qualitatively different. It has the ability to > combine simple or elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex > composite qualia or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural > intelligence. > > I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that champions > "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro substitutuion argument, > should think of "not glutamate" as. They will always assert that it will > "arise" some place at some "functional" level, outside of wherever you > propose to do the physical substitution test. They have a little trick > that will always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical > theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no matter > where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as I can see, the > only possibility they have is that it "arises" in some impossible to > objectively detect (else they will swap it out using this little trick) > "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. > > Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this little > trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with glutamate, to keep > the "binding neuron from functioning the same" before and after > substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate receptor) with glycene (and it's > glycene receptor). > > So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative > difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding neuron is > firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis does the neural > substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not glutamate receptor) with not > glycene (and a not glycene receptor), even though you now have not glycene > chemically reacting in both of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it > is incorrectly doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they > are different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not > glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have removed the > necessary functional ability of the system to fire correctly and report > qualitative discernment of not glutamate and not glycene. If you preserve > the necessary qualitative discernible functionality (and the ability to > verbally report such) with your theory, the system must report the > qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this > little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the very > qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no matter where you > propose it might testably physically resides. No matter what you theorize > that not glutamate and not glycene may be, and how it might be physically > distinguished, Stathis and James will attempt to use some physical trick > like not glutamate receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the > necessary objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting > in all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability to > detect or discern it. > > Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability function, > theoretically possibly by physically or chemically coupling the two > synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's ability to be aware of > when one synapse has the reference quality key like not glycene > functionality and the lock like not glycene receptor functionality and the > other synapse has either the same or the not glutamate and a not glutamate > receptor, so the system can be aware of, and correctly report whether they > lock and key like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice > that by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing > correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are the same > the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively detect not > glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and there by objectively > eff the ineffable - if science is able to prove your proposed not glutamate > and not glycene, to be the real reliable for everyone and every subjective > computer thing. Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the > experimental neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to > effingly test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, > how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, to know > how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply because they are > miss interpreting the abstracted information about what they are observing, > and be able to eff the ineffable. I bet this will happen relatively > rapidly, once experimentalists understand this kind of qualitative discern > ability theory, and how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are > observing. > > > So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is there > any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative discern-ability > theory so that more neuro scientists can more easily relate to it? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: > > John K Clark wrote: > > "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part > interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall > behaviour of the system" > > Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. > > He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that > it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, > whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. > > I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has been > saying. > > Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think > there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at > least it's understandable now. > > Thanks, John. > > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > > Hi Stathis, > > You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. > Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. > > > As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the > prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we > experience. > > It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is > necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument > is this: > > A. The brain is a system made of parts. > B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. > C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its > neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the > same way. > D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia > would change but the behaviour would not. > E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. > > Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected > - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. > > That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical > world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and > white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, > glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness > quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be > aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world > there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily > inverted. > > > The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can > understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro > substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a > simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively > interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to > apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that > is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, > what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the > single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, > once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by > miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) > and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, > qualitatively correctly. > > > Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified > theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if you > believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds or > paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and John > Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the > ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be > approachable via objective or sharable science? > > Brent > > > > On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > Hi Stathis, > > > Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise so > we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our > misunderstanding is captured by you with this: > > On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative representation". > *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to consider in order to > replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that if you ignore qualia > and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the qualia will also > necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which I believe is > clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. > > > Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are > saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first > want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable > behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even > if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or > removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move > beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I > can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first > understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, > this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this > initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be > able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of > doing neuro substitution. > > Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 > element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a > unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative > representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is > binding the two different representations into one composite experience. > The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative > representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on > which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could > lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively > the same or not. > > So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the > following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of > the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the > functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is > performing the function of binding these two representations of information > together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd > awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. > > You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first focus > on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* then the > qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of qualia > is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of the > functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. > > Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective way > of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that has > or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene that > performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with > subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with > objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd > part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's > sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - > outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge > are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way > it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make > one composite qualitative experience. > > Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the > glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison > neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison > functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate > that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it > be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the > redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge > are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet > you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are > different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro > substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it > being the source of all the "hard" problems. > > > I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond > to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what > neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that > are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate > receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell > membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach > non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes > described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of > this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, > leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic > receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the > receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, > potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes > the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of > transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then > cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and > ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, > triggering the next neuron in the chain. > > Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - > glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to > glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate > receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have > similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels > when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard > to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles > will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. > "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that > the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries > look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't > agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of > events I have described I have missed something and explain how the > glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can > possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. > > If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in > some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other > abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be > reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a > neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison > functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being > compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison > functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I > don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically > possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a > binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it > is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution > occurs. > > If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring > and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method > of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious > what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having > two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one > that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and > the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We > will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta > comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the > qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so > you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what > it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always > indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other > after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this > *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on > with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro > substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable > behavior*. > > Does that help? > > > Brent Allsop > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 12:30:15 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:30:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 Message-ID: These technologies all have staying power. They will affect the economy and our politics, improve medicine, or influence our culture. Some are unfolding now; others will take a decade or more to develop. But you should know about all of them right now. Reversing Paralysis Driverless Trucks Paying with Your Face Practical Quantum Computing The 360-Degree Selfie Hot Solar Cells Gene Therapy 2.0 The Cell Atlas Botnets of Things Reinforcement Learning ----------------------- Most items on the list will be familiar, though they may be arriving sooner than expected. :) Re: Practical Quantum Computing Advances at Google, Intel, and several research groups indicate that computers with previously unimaginable power are finally within reach. ------------------ Quantum computers have to run at near absolute zero temperatures. Space is already very cold (away from the sun). How does this change the M-Brain cooling calculations? Does the heat dispersal problem disappear altogether? BillK From sparge at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 13:33:50 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:33:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:30 AM, BillK wrote: > Reversing Paralysis > > Driverless Trucks > I'd rather see long-haul trucking replaced with rail but there doesn't seem to be any traction behind that. Driving cars on the Interstates sucks due to semi traffic and they do a lot more damage to the infrastructure than cars. But self-driving trucks (and cars) are a good thing. Paying with Your Face > Yawn. > Practical Quantum Computing > The article is pretty hyperbolic and QC is still Real Soon Now, but the potential is there. > The 360-Degree Selfie > Yawn. I'd rather have 3D. Hot Solar Cells > > Gene Therapy 2.0 > > The Cell Atlas > > Botnets of Things > > Reinforcement Learning > -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 14:55:33 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:55:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Message-ID: "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part interacts with other parts then those internal changes make no change to the overall behavior of the system." John K Clark Part of anything, I assume. For this to be true, I'd say that the change(s) were made in some nonworking section of the thing (computer, brain, AC), and I would then question why the change was made in the first place. bill w On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:26 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed., 22 Feb. 2017 at 2:45 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> Dang, I really thought this iteration of the argument, if you fully >> understood it, would at least have some effect on your insistence that the >> neuro substitution argument is not completely flawed. >> >> >> These statements of yours seem obviously completely wrong and indicate >> you still don't fully understand what I'm trying to say about qualitative >> discern-ability and how the binding neuron can't work the way you say >> describe, and how it must behave in the way I say it needs to - to achieve >> the necessary subjective or objective qualitative discern-ability >> functionality: >> >> *"the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were true it would >> lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, but who would >> never be able to notice the change." * >> >> and >> >> *"if you are right and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then >> qualia do not exist"* >> >> >> Could you describe why you think these are in a little more detail, or >> provide an example, as I don't see how anyone could think either of these >> could be true? >> >> >> And could you tell me if the most recent description of my qualitative >> discern-ability theory had any effect, whatsoever, on the way you think >> about the neuro substitution and the qualitative nature of consciousness? >> Do you understand what I mean by objective and subjective qualitative >> discern-ability are necessary given what we (I, sorry John) subjectively >> experience of qualitative knowledge? If you don't understand it, probably >> nobody else will be able to understand it. :( I guess we're not done, >> after all. Oh well, thanks for still not giving up on trying to understand >> what I'm trying to say, and or helping me to better understand the way you >> think. I sure don't want to have to resort to just waiting for the >> experimental neuroscientists to prove to us which of us closer to the true >> theory of the qualitative nature of consciousness. >> > > But there is NO experimental result that would make any difference to the > argument. To give some emotional distance I have tried non-biological > examples. If the power supply of your computer is replaced with a different > power supply that produces exactly the same voltage and current, is it > possible that your programs will run differently? If the cylinders in your > car engine are replaced with cylinders of a different material with the > same dimensions, density, melting point, and every other relevant physical > parameter is it possible that your car will run differently? > > Brent >> >> >> >> On 2/21/2017 4:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 22 February 2017 at 08:56, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, >> >> >> James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed him in >> this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of more iterations >> here since he was last CCed, we might have achieved a breakthrough (and >> this time I'm more sure than the last 100 or so times I thought this! ;) >> and I couldn't have done it without all your help. If you guys think >> you've told me your ever improving arguments too many times, James has >> given me Stathis' nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of >> times in ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James >> continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective side, you >> need to do something like distinguish redness from greenness, and on the >> objective side, the same thing will appear to be something like >> distinguishing between the qualitative nature of something physical like >> (not, see below) glutamate and (not, see below) glycene neuro >> transmitters. On the subjective side, all we know of not glutamate, is >> it's redness quality. So thanks, everyone, for all your patient help over >> so many years with all this. >> >> Perhaps there is a problem here with the way you are arguing. I think you >> are proposing that glutamate has a redness quality (or if not glutamate, >> some other structure in the brain). It is OK to propose this as a >> hypothesis, but then in scientific discourse the hypothesis is challenged. >> My challenge is that the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were >> true it would lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, >> but who would never be able to notice the change. This is >> self-contradictory because, whatever else we might say about qualia, being >> able to notice our own qualia and notice when they change is a necessary >> part of the qualia deal; if you get rid of this aspect of qualia then you >> may as well say that qualia do not exist. In other words, if you are right >> and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then qualia do not exist. >> You say below that functionalism leads to the "hard problem" of >> consciousness, which you don't like. I don't see how it leads to the "hard >> problem" any more than structure-specific qualia, but even if it does, >> that's just too bad - because structure-specific qualia leads to the >> elimination of the qualia that you and I know we have. This argument is >> independent of any particular details of brain function; it could have >> validly been made in a bygone era before the existence of neurons was even >> suspected. >> >> >> Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get a kick >> out of this. He was the first person that helped me understand how all >> this knowledge in the brain stuff could work back in the 80s. He may have >> some better proposed theories about what qualitative not glutamate and not >> glycene may be, including what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for >> more context, you may want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I >> mean by the simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: >> redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 where I describe how to eff >> the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible theoretical way. >> >> >> "*The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.*" >> Thomas A. Edison >> >> >> Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, >> but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the >> ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) >> qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too. >> >> So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative >> discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead to >> verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative discern-ability in any >> theoretical testable way, there needs to be at least 2 qualitative >> representation of knowledge or knowing. When you talk to me, you should >> use simple words like glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to >> represent this objective and subjective qualitative functionality >> representing knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified >> (though evidently this particular example theory is already falsified in >> some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of qualitative theory). >> But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben describes it this way: >> >> *<<<<* >> *Not some/thing/. * >> >> *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark >> would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an >> adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but >> there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * >> >> *More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an >> information-process. * >> >> *So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there >> must be an information process that is that knowing". * >> *>>>>* >> >> So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not >> glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the neuro >> scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" is the process >> of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know what qualitative >> distinguishable functionality is with this, on the detectable objective >> side, and it is important to have the ability to tell the qualitative >> difference between redness and greenness on the subjective side. This >> qualitative discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the >> system the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of >> strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report qualitative >> difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is the process of knowing >> redness which is objectively detect-ably different than the process of >> knowing greenness. This can be true, even if it isn't possible to truly >> eff the difference - John would probably say you must change from Ben or >> John to know all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and >> you must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. >> While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively detect-ably >> impossible. >> >> And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly proposed to >> be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding neuron. Or maybe, if >> you must maybe call it a binding - not a neuron. Whatever it is test-ably >> theoretically proposed to be, it is the ability for the system to be aware >> of and report, or fire, only when at least 2 different objective and >> subjective things are qualitatively different. It has the ability to >> combine simple or elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex >> composite qualia or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural >> intelligence. >> >> I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that champions >> "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro substitutuion argument, >> should think of "not glutamate" as. They will always assert that it will >> "arise" some place at some "functional" level, outside of wherever you >> propose to do the physical substitution test. They have a little trick >> that will always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical >> theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no matter >> where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as I can see, the >> only possibility they have is that it "arises" in some impossible to >> objectively detect (else they will swap it out using this little trick) >> "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. >> >> Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this little >> trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with glutamate, to keep >> the "binding neuron from functioning the same" before and after >> substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate receptor) with glycene (and it's >> glycene receptor). >> >> So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative >> difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding neuron is >> firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis does the neural >> substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not glutamate receptor) with not >> glycene (and a not glycene receptor), even though you now have not glycene >> chemically reacting in both of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it >> is incorrectly doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they >> are different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not >> glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have removed the >> necessary functional ability of the system to fire correctly and report >> qualitative discernment of not glutamate and not glycene. If you preserve >> the necessary qualitative discernible functionality (and the ability to >> verbally report such) with your theory, the system must report the >> qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this >> little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the very >> qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no matter where you >> propose it might testably physically resides. No matter what you theorize >> that not glutamate and not glycene may be, and how it might be physically >> distinguished, Stathis and James will attempt to use some physical trick >> like not glutamate receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the >> necessary objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting >> in all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability to >> detect or discern it. >> >> Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability >> function, theoretically possibly by physically or chemically coupling the >> two synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's ability to be aware of >> when one synapse has the reference quality key like not glycene >> functionality and the lock like not glycene receptor functionality and the >> other synapse has either the same or the not glutamate and a not glutamate >> receptor, so the system can be aware of, and correctly report whether they >> lock and key like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice >> that by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing >> correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are the same >> the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively detect not >> glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and there by objectively >> eff the ineffable - if science is able to prove your proposed not glutamate >> and not glycene, to be the real reliable for everyone and every subjective >> computer thing. Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the >> experimental neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to >> effingly test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, >> how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, to know >> how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply because they are >> miss interpreting the abstracted information about what they are observing, >> and be able to eff the ineffable. I bet this will happen relatively >> rapidly, once experimentalists understand this kind of qualitative discern >> ability theory, and how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are >> observing. >> >> >> So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is there >> any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative discern-ability >> theory so that more neuro scientists can more easily relate to it? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: >> >> John K Clark wrote: >> >> "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part >> interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall >> behaviour of the system" >> >> Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. >> >> He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that >> it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, >> whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. >> >> I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has >> been saying. >> >> Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think >> there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at >> least it's understandable now. >> >> Thanks, John. >> >> >> Ben Zaiboc >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. >> Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. >> >> >> As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the >> prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we >> experience. >> >> It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is >> necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument >> is this: >> >> A. The brain is a system made of parts. >> B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. >> C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its >> neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the >> same way. >> D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia >> would change but the behaviour would not. >> E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. >> >> Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected >> - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. >> >> That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical >> world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and >> white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, >> glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness >> quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be >> aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world >> there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily >> inverted. >> >> >> The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can >> understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro >> substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a >> simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively >> interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to >> apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that >> is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, >> what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the >> single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, >> once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by >> miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) >> and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, >> qualitatively correctly. >> >> >> Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified >> theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if >> you believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds >> or paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and >> John Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the >> ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be >> approachable via objective or sharable science? >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise >> so we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our >> misunderstanding is captured by you with this: >> >> On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to >> consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that >> if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the >> qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which >> I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. >> >> >> Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are >> saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first >> want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable >> behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even >> if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or >> removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move >> beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I >> can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first >> understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, >> this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this >> initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be >> able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of >> doing neuro substitution. >> >> Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 >> element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a >> unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative >> representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is >> binding the two different representations into one composite experience. >> The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative >> representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on >> which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could >> lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively >> the same or not. >> >> So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the >> following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of >> the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the >> functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is >> performing the function of binding these two representations of information >> together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd >> awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. >> >> You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first >> focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* >> then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of >> qualia is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of >> the functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. >> >> Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective >> way of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that >> has or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene >> that performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with >> subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with >> objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd >> part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's >> sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - >> outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge >> are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way >> it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make >> one composite qualitative experience. >> >> Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the >> glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison >> neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison >> functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate >> that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it >> be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the >> redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge >> are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet >> you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are >> different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro >> substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it >> being the source of all the "hard" problems. >> >> >> I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond >> to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what >> neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that >> are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate >> receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell >> membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach >> non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes >> described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of >> this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, >> leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic >> receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the >> receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, >> potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes >> the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of >> transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then >> cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and >> ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, >> triggering the next neuron in the chain. >> >> Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - >> glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate >> receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to >> glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate >> receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have >> similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels >> when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard >> to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles >> will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. >> "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that >> the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries >> look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't >> agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of >> events I have described I have missed something and explain how the >> glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can >> possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. >> >> If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in >> some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other >> abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be >> reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a >> neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison >> functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being >> compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison >> functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I >> don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically >> possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a >> binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it >> is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution >> occurs. >> >> If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring >> and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method >> of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious >> what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having >> two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one >> that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and >> the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We >> will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta >> comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the >> qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so >> you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what >> it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always >> indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other >> after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this >> *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on >> with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro >> substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable >> behavior*. >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 >> > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 15:10:01 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:10:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Message-ID: HI Stathis, Yes, we probably do need some emotional distance and thank you for being so gracious kind patient and helpfull. I apologize if I have made this too emotional. Can we back up a bit, and go over some things, so we can be sure there are no miss underandings with some of this very complex stuff? For example do you understand what I mean by subjective qualitative discern-ability? Brent On Feb 21, 2017 9:27 PM, "Stathis Papaioannou" wrote: > > On Wed., 22 Feb. 2017 at 2:45 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> Dang, I really thought this iteration of the argument, if you fully >> understood it, would at least have some effect on your insistence that the >> neuro substitution argument is not completely flawed. >> >> >> These statements of yours seem obviously completely wrong and indicate >> you still don't fully understand what I'm trying to say about qualitative >> discern-ability and how the binding neuron can't work the way you say >> describe, and how it must behave in the way I say it needs to - to achieve >> the necessary subjective or objective qualitative discern-ability >> functionality: >> >> *"the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were true it would >> lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, but who would >> never be able to notice the change." * >> >> and >> >> *"if you are right and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then >> qualia do not exist"* >> >> >> Could you describe why you think these are in a little more detail, or >> provide an example, as I don't see how anyone could think either of these >> could be true? >> >> >> And could you tell me if the most recent description of my qualitative >> discern-ability theory had any effect, whatsoever, on the way you think >> about the neuro substitution and the qualitative nature of consciousness? >> Do you understand what I mean by objective and subjective qualitative >> discern-ability are necessary given what we (I, sorry John) subjectively >> experience of qualitative knowledge? If you don't understand it, probably >> nobody else will be able to understand it. :( I guess we're not done, >> after all. Oh well, thanks for still not giving up on trying to understand >> what I'm trying to say, and or helping me to better understand the way you >> think. I sure don't want to have to resort to just waiting for the >> experimental neuroscientists to prove to us which of us closer to the true >> theory of the qualitative nature of consciousness. >> > > But there is NO experimental result that would make any difference to the > argument. To give some emotional distance I have tried non-biological > examples. If the power supply of your computer is replaced with a different > power supply that produces exactly the same voltage and current, is it > possible that your programs will run differently? If the cylinders in your > car engine are replaced with cylinders of a different material with the > same dimensions, density, melting point, and every other relevant physical > parameter is it possible that your car will run differently? > > Brent >> >> >> >> On 2/21/2017 4:03 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> On 22 February 2017 at 08:56, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi all you thankfully very persistent, and patiently helpful people, >> >> >> James is probably going to hate me for this, but I've again CCed him in >> this conversation, as I again think that after dozens of more iterations >> here since he was last CCed, we might have achieved a breakthrough (and >> this time I'm more sure than the last 100 or so times I thought this! ;) >> and I couldn't have done it without all your help. If you guys think >> you've told me your ever improving arguments too many times, James has >> given me Stathis' nero substitution argument what seems to be hundreds of >> times in ever improving ways over the span of many years. Via James >> continued prodding he helped me realize that from the subjective side, you >> need to do something like distinguish redness from greenness, and on the >> objective side, the same thing will appear to be something like >> distinguishing between the qualitative nature of something physical like >> (not, see below) glutamate and (not, see below) glycene neuro >> transmitters. On the subjective side, all we know of not glutamate, is >> it's redness quality. So thanks, everyone, for all your patient help over >> so many years with all this. >> >> Perhaps there is a problem here with the way you are arguing. I think you >> are proposing that glutamate has a redness quality (or if not glutamate, >> some other structure in the brain). It is OK to propose this as a >> hypothesis, but then in scientific discourse the hypothesis is challenged. >> My challenge is that the hypothesis is self-contradictory, since if it were >> true it would lead to a subject whose qualia could change in a gross way, >> but who would never be able to notice the change. This is >> self-contradictory because, whatever else we might say about qualia, being >> able to notice our own qualia and notice when they change is a necessary >> part of the qualia deal; if you get rid of this aspect of qualia then you >> may as well say that qualia do not exist. In other words, if you are right >> and qualia are due to a certain brain structure, then qualia do not exist. >> You say below that functionalism leads to the "hard problem" of >> consciousness, which you don't like. I don't see how it leads to the "hard >> problem" any more than structure-specific qualia, but even if it does, >> that's just too bad - because structure-specific qualia leads to the >> elimination of the qualia that you and I know we have. This argument is >> independent of any particular details of brain function; it could have >> validly been made in a bygone era before the existence of neurons was even >> suspected. >> >> >> Oh, and I've CCed the brilliant Steven Lehar, as I think he'll get a kick >> out of this. He was the first person that helped me understand how all >> this knowledge in the brain stuff could work back in the 80s. He may have >> some better proposed theories about what qualitative not glutamate and not >> glycene may be, including what the binding neuron could be. Steve, for >> more context, you may want to watch this 15 minute video to know what I >> mean by the simplified theoretical world that only has 3 colors: >> redness(glutamate) grenness(glycene) and whitness(aspartate): >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 where I describe how to eff >> the ineffable in the simplest (as far as I know) possible theoretical way. >> >> >> "*The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.*" >> Thomas A. Edison >> >> >> Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, >> but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the >> ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) >> qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too. >> >> So, let me more rigorously define what I mean by qualitative >> discern-ability function (which includes something that could lead to >> verbal report ability). To reproduce qualitative discern-ability in any >> theoretical testable way, there needs to be at least 2 qualitative >> representation of knowledge or knowing. When you talk to me, you should >> use simple words like glutamate(redness) and glycene(greenness) to >> represent this objective and subjective qualitative functionality >> representing knowledge (because I'm not too smart, and need a simplified >> (though evidently this particular example theory is already falsified in >> some people's minds) way to comprehend this kind of qualitative theory). >> But when you talk to Ben and John, Ben describes it this way: >> >> *<<<<* >> *Not some/thing/. * >> >> *I don't think knowledge is a 'thing', it's a process. As John K Clark >> would put it, knowledge isn't a noun, it's more like a verb or an >> adjective. This means that there is no such thing as 'a knowledge', but >> there is such a thing as 'knowing'. * >> >> *More conventionally put, knowledge (and experience) is an >> information-process. * >> >> *So your statement above could be reworded: "If you know something, there >> must be an information process that is that knowing". * >> *>>>>* >> >> So, for others I'll call it "not glutamate". Ben should take "not >> glutamate" to be a process of knowing redness, at least until the neuro >> scientists falsify his particular theory. And "Not glycene" is the process >> of knowing greenness. It must be possible to know what qualitative >> distinguishable functionality is with this, on the detectable objective >> side, and it is important to have the ability to tell the qualitative >> difference between redness and greenness on the subjective side. This >> qualitative discern-ability of the knowledge process is what gives the >> system the ability to objectively distinguish between knowledge of >> strawberries and knowledge of leaves (and to verbally report qualitative >> difference). For Ben, the redness functionality is the process of knowing >> redness which is objectively detect-ably different than the process of >> knowing greenness. This can be true, even if it isn't possible to truly >> eff the difference - John would probably say you must change from Ben or >> John to know all the subtle differences between redness and greenness, and >> you must become Brent, to fully detect Brent's redness and greenness. >> While this particular theory is harder, it's not objectively detect-ably >> impossible. >> >> And finally, you need a third function which can be testibly proposed to >> be some kind of binding system or maybe a binding neuron. Or maybe, if >> you must maybe call it a binding - not a neuron. Whatever it is test-ably >> theoretically proposed to be, it is the ability for the system to be aware >> of and report, or fire, only when at least 2 different objective and >> subjective things are qualitatively different. It has the ability to >> combine simple or elemental qualia to produce the diversely complex >> composite qualia or conscious knowledge required for powerful natural >> intelligence. >> >> I'm not quite sure what Stathis and James, or anyone that champions >> "functionality" based qualia because of the neuro substitutuion argument, >> should think of "not glutamate" as. They will always assert that it will >> "arise" some place at some "functional" level, outside of wherever you >> propose to do the physical substitution test. They have a little trick >> that will always enable them to neuro substitute out any proposed physical >> theoretical claim of qualitative and physical discern-ability, no matter >> where you propose to test for it in the system. As far as I can see, the >> only possibility they have is that it "arises" in some impossible to >> objectively detect (else they will swap it out using this little trick) >> "magic" or inconceivably "hard" way. >> >> Stathis gave me the idea of how to describe and point out this little >> trick, when he used a glutamate receptor, combined with glutamate, to keep >> the "binding neuron from functioning the same" before and after >> substituting glutamate (and it's glutamate receptor) with glycene (and it's >> glycene receptor). >> >> So, you can start with a system that is detecting the qualitative >> difference between not glutamate and not glycene and the binding neuron is >> firing, indicating they are different. When Stathis does the neural >> substitutuion of not glutamate (and a not glutamate receptor) with not >> glycene (and a not glycene receptor), even though you now have not glycene >> chemically reacting in both of the input synapses of the binding neuron, it >> is incorrectly doing the "same observable behavior" and reporting that they >> are different, even though they are both the same not glycene (and not >> glycene receptor). The problem is, if this is true, you have removed the >> necessary functional ability of the system to fire correctly and report >> qualitative discernment of not glutamate and not glycene. If you preserve >> the necessary qualitative discernible functionality (and the ability to >> verbally report such) with your theory, the system must report the >> qualitative difference between not glutamate and not glycene. Hence this >> little "trick" is a functional fallacy since it is removing the very >> qualitative discern-ability you need from the system, no matter where you >> propose it might testably physically resides. No matter what you theorize >> that not glutamate and not glycene may be, and how it might be physically >> distinguished, Stathis and James will attempt to use some physical trick >> like not glutamate receptors and not glycene receptors to remove the >> necessary objective qualitative discern-ability of the system - resulting >> in all the "hard" problems and the removal of any objective ability to >> detect or discern it. >> >> Now, if you can preserve the correct qualitative discern-ability >> function, theoretically possibly by physically or chemically coupling the >> two synapses in some way giving the binding neuron's ability to be aware of >> when one synapse has the reference quality key like not glycene >> functionality and the lock like not glycene receptor functionality and the >> other synapse has either the same or the not glutamate and a not glutamate >> receptor, so the system can be aware of, and correctly report whether they >> lock and key like functionality are qualitatively different, then notice >> that by preserving the qualitative discern-ability function and firing >> correctly when they are different, and not firing when they are the same >> the "hard" problems go away - and you can now objectively detect not >> glutamate, and distinguish this from not glycene and there by objectively >> eff the ineffable - if science is able to prove your proposed not glutamate >> and not glycene, to be the real reliable for everyone and every subjective >> computer thing. Proving which theory is THE ONE, will be left to the >> experimental neuroscientists, who will be able to finally know how to >> effingly test for this stuff, once they understand this qualitative theory, >> how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are observing, to know >> how to not be qualia blind as most of them now do simply because they are >> miss interpreting the abstracted information about what they are observing, >> and be able to eff the ineffable. I bet this will happen relatively >> rapidly, once experimentalists understand this kind of qualitative discern >> ability theory, and how to properly qualitatively interpret what they are >> observing. >> >> >> So, does this help? Any questions? Do we need to keep going? Is there >> any simpler way to describe any of this kind of qualitative discern-ability >> theory so that more neuro scientists can more easily relate to it? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2/20/2017 1:59 PM, Ben wrote: >> >> John K Clark wrote: >> >> "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part >> interacts with other parts then they make no change to the overall >> behaviour of the system" >> >> Aha, I think I see now where the difference of opinion lies. >> >> He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Brent is of the opinion that >> it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts, >> whereas the rest of us don't, as long as the interactions remain the same. >> >> I hope I'm right, because this suddenly makes sense of what Brent has >> been saying. >> >> Not that it's correct, I think it's profoundly incorrect, and I think >> there are very good logical and empirical reasons for thinking this, but at >> least it's understandable now. >> >> Thanks, John. >> >> >> Ben Zaiboc >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> You obviously know more than I know about how neuro transmitters work. >> Thanks for helping me to better understand this type of stuff. >> >> >> As I said, if what you say is true, then it merely falsifies the >> prediction that glutamate is what performs the redness quality we >> experience. >> >> It falsifies the theory that *any* particular substrate or physics is >> necessary for the redness quality, or any other quale. The general argument >> is this: >> >> A. The brain is a system made of parts. >> B. Each part interacts with neighbouring parts. >> C. If you replace one part with a different part that interacts with its >> neighbours in the same way, then the system as a whole will behave in the >> same way. >> D. If the part you replaced were essential for qualia, then the qualia >> would change but the behaviour would not. >> E. Think about what it would mean if (D) were true. >> >> Note that this does not say anything about whether qualia can be detected >> - only that qualia cannot be due to a particular substrate or physics. >> >> That is why I always resort to talking about the "simplified theoretical >> world". In the simplified world, there are only 3 colors: red, green and >> white. And in that simplified world, glutamate has the redness quality, >> glycene has the greenness quality, aspartate that has the whiteness >> quality, and it is one neuron that binds them all together, so you can be >> aware of them all at once. And for Ben's sake: in this simplified world >> there are "red and green signals in the optic nerve" that can be easily >> inverted. >> >> >> The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can >> understand the qualitative theory I'm trying to describe, and how neuro >> substitutuion works with no "hard" problems, and how people in such a >> simplified world can "eff the ineffable" by properly qualitatively >> interpreting abstracted observation knowledge - then they should be able to >> apply the same qualitative theory in the more complex real world. All that >> is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, >> what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the >> single neuron binding system. That job is for the experimentalists to do, >> once they understand how to test for it by no longer being qualia blind (by >> miss interpreting abstracted observation information as they all do now) >> and effing the ineffable by interpreting what they are observing, >> qualitatively correctly. >> >> >> Ben, I don't know if it will help, but I describe the "simplified >> theoretical world" in more detail, in this talk: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . But it may not help if >> you believe there are not elemental qualities out of which our brain builds >> or paints composite qualitative experiences with. It sounds like you and >> John Clark agree on this? Do you also, like John, believe that effing the >> ineffable is impossible, and thereby, qualia will forever not be >> approachable via objective or sharable science? >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On 2/15/2017 8:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> >> On Wed., 15 Feb. 2017 at 4:48 pm, Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> Thanks for expressing all this so concisely. I hope I can be as concise >> so we can make progress with this. I think the key point in our >> misunderstanding is captured by you with this: >> >> On 2/14/2017 5:02 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> You're missing the point when you talk about "qualitative >> representation". *Observable behaviour* is the only thing necessary to >> consider in order to replicate *observable behaviour*. The argument is that >> if you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behaviour* then the >> qualia will also necessarily be replicated. I gave an example of this which >> I believe is clear (tell me if not) with the glutamate/glycine swap. >> >> >> Yes, your answer was very clear. I agree with most of what you are >> saying, but we both believe that the other is missing the point. You first >> want to focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable >> behavior* then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But even >> if I do agree with this, from how I see things, it is still missing or >> removing some important functionality. In the past you never want to move >> beyond this, because or until this has been settled. The problem is, I >> can't point out the required functionality being removed, until you first >> understand and agree with some other things in the qualitative theory. So, >> this time, could you move beyond that, at least for a bit and digest this >> initial description, then given that understanding (if you agree), I'll be >> able to point out the reasons I can't yet accept this functionalist way of >> doing neuro substitution. >> >> Let's start on the subjective side of things, again, with our simple 3 >> element system. The system is experiencing both redness and greenness as a >> unified composite qualitative experience. So, there are two qualitative >> representations of knowledge and there is a 3rd part of the system that is >> binding the two different representations into one composite experience. >> The fact that the system is aware of both of these qualitative >> representations at the same time, is the critical base functionality on >> which the comparison system is derived - outputting an indicator that could >> lead to one saying they are consciously aware that they are qualitatively >> the same or not. >> >> So, given that we subjectively know that, would you agree with the >> following? There must be something that is performing the functionality of >> the redness experience, and there is something that is performing the >> functionality of the greenness, and there is a 3rd element that is >> performing the function of binding these two representations of information >> together to make a composite experience - enabling the 3rd >> awareness/comparison neuron to indicate whether they are the same or not. >> >> You seem loath to want to go there, instead, first, wanting to first >> focus on: "If you ignore qualia and just replicate *observable behavior* >> then the qualia will also necessarily be replicated." But this ignoring of >> qualia is the problem, and you end up removing the most important parts of >> the functionality we want to observe as we neuro substitute. >> >> Let's compare this subjective way of observing things to the objective >> way of observing things, and for the time being assume it is glutamate that >> has or performs the redness experience functionality, and it is glycene >> that performs the greenness experience functionality. Given that, with >> subjective observation, we would experience a redness detector and with >> objective observation we would see a glutamate detector. So, what the 3rd >> part of the system (we are assuming it is a single neuron for simplicity's >> sake) is basically an objective and subjective comparison system - >> outputting an indicator as to whether the two representations of knowledge >> are functioning the same or not. This functionality derived from the way >> it binds together awareness of the two representations of knowledge to make >> one composite qualitative experience. >> >> Now, when you say you replace glutamate with glycene, and you replace the >> glutamate receptor with a glycene receptor, then assert that the comparison >> neuron will behave the same, you are removing the important comparison >> functionality, or simply falsifying the theory that it is only glutamate >> that reliably performs the redness function (if so, necessitating that it >> be something else, yet to be discovered, that is reliably performing the >> redness functionality we know so well). Both representations of knowledge >> are now the same qualitative glycene (or the greenness functionality), yet >> you are asserting that the output is still indicating that the two are >> different. This removal of the correct functionality as you do the neuro >> substitution, is why I can't accept your line of reasoning, along with it >> being the source of all the "hard" problems. >> >> >> I started answering point by point but I think it is best to just respond >> to this point, because it seems that you are ignoring what >> neurotransmitters actually do. Neurotransmitters are small molecules that >> are released from the presynaptic neuron and bind to the appropriate >> receptor on the postsynaptic neuron. Receptors are proteins in the cell >> membrane which have special sites to which neurotransmitters attach >> non-covalently (without forming a permanent chemical bond), sometimes >> described as being analogous to a lock and key mechanism. As a result of >> this interaction the receptor protein is pulled into a different shape, >> leading to a cascade of events in the neuron. With so-called ionotropic >> receptors the binding of the neurotransmitter opens up channels in the >> receptor allowing ions to move into and out of the neuron: sodium, >> potassium or calcium ions. Since ions are charged entities, this changes >> the voltage across the cell membrane, which can then change the shape of >> transmembrane proteins called voltage-gated ion channels, which can then >> cause a spike in voltage to propagates down the axon of the neuron, and >> ultimately to cause neurotransmitter release at the end of the axon, >> triggering the next neuron in the chain. >> >> Now, if we swap glutamate for glycine in this setup it won't work - >> glycine will not bind to the glutamate receptors. If we swap the glutamate >> receptors for glycine receptors it won't work - glutamate will not bind to >> glycine receptors. But if we swap glutamate for glycine and glutamate >> receptors for glycine receptors, and the glycine receptors otherwise have >> similar properties to the glutamate receptors (open similar ion channels >> when glycine binds), then the neuron will behave in the same way in regard >> to when it will fire, and hence all the downstream neurons and the muscles >> will behave in the same way, and the subject will behave in the same way. >> "The subject will behave in the same way" means, among other things, that >> the subject will say in a before/after comparison that the strawberries >> look red to him in exactly the same way as they did before. If you don't >> agree with this, then please point out where in the detailed chain of >> events I have described I have missed something and explain how the >> glutamate/glycine swap (leaving everything else in the brain the same) can >> possibly lead to the subject saying that his qualia have changed. >> >> If you assume the qualia experience functionality will arise or emerge in >> some other way or some other abstracted level, then it is this other >> abstracted location of qualia that can't be ignored, and must be able to be >> reliably compared via composite awareness. I am talking about doing a >> neuro substitution at this level, with the required qualia comparison >> functionality, not the level you are talking about, where the qualia being >> compared is being removed. If you are going to claim that a comparison >> functionality can be constructed out of this simplistic lower level (I >> don't see how this could be done), then provide at least one theoretically >> possible description of such (as I have done with glutamate, glycene, and a >> binder neuron to make a composite experience), and with that, whatever it >> is, it will be obvious what happens, and why, as the neural substitution >> occurs. >> >> If you do the neural substitutuion on a system that, instead of ignoring >> and removing qualia comparison, you provide any testable theoretical method >> of really doing the function of qualitative comparison, it can be obvious >> what is going on during the neural substitution. Let's do this by having >> two sets of such identical 3 element qualitative comparison systems, one >> that doesn't change and is for constant reference comparison purposes, and >> the other one is the one we will perform the neuro substitution on. We >> will bind these two systems with the same provided binding system in a meta >> comparison functioning system which will monitor and compare all the >> qualities, as the neural substitution takes place on one of the systems, so >> you can prove to everyone, both objectively and subjectively, exactly what >> it is going on, and why both of the 3 element systems are always >> indicating: "It is red" even though one is the qualia invert of the other >> after one of the neuro substitution steps. If you duplicate all this >> *observable behavior*, including the meta awareness of what is going on >> with both systems, there will be no hard problems when it is neuro >> substituted since you are not removing the most important *observable >> behavior*. >> >> Does that help? >> >> >> Brent Allsop >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 >> >> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing listextropy-chat at lists.extropy.orghttp://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 >> > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 22 15:39:47 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 07:39:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >...Quantum computers have to run at near absolute zero temperatures. Space is already very cold (away from the sun). How does this change the M-Brain cooling calculations? Does the heat dispersal problem disappear altogether? BillK _______________________________________________ WOW good question BillK. How are they powered? spike From pharos at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 19:33:31 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:33:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> Message-ID: On 22 February 2017 at 15:39, spike wrote: > WOW good question BillK. How are they powered? > Well, nobody has built a proper quantum computer yet, (not counting D-Wave), so we don't know yet. Current estimate is 4 to 5 years. See: for some of the latest news. The labs described there use tiny chips inside big refrigerators to get the chips down to near absolute zero. In space, the fridges would disappear. The processing depends on the manipulation of qubits, which currently (during research) can take various forms. e.g. polarization of photons or spin of electrons, etc. So the power requirements should be less than current computers, maybe even negligible. We'll have to wait and see. :) BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Feb 22 19:15:26 2017 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:15:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tim Draper VC Message-ID: <20170222121526.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.d970cd8481.wbe@email17.godaddy.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 22 19:46:48 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:46:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> Message-ID: <00c801d28d44$684cec90$38e6c5b0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:34 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 On 22 February 2017 at 15:39, spike wrote: >>... WOW good question BillK. How are they powered? > >...Well, nobody has built a proper quantum computer yet, (not counting D-Wave), so we don't know yet. Current estimate is 4 to 5 years. See: for some of the latest news. >...The labs described there use tiny chips inside big refrigerators to get the chips down to near absolute zero. In space, the fridges would disappear. The processing depends on the manipulation of qubits, which currently (during research) can take various forms. e.g. polarization of photons or spin of electrons, etc. So the power requirements should be less than current computers, maybe even negligible. >...We'll have to wait and see. :) >...BillK _______________________________________________ Ja. I need to make sure I understand this from an entropy point of view. If computing is taking place, entropy is decreasing: we are finding answers and arranging bits in a particular way. If we really understand the hell out of the second law of thermodynamics we should be able to get this one, but I don't know if quantum computing does some kind of weird Heisenberg voodoo to get around what I have always understood to be the way it works. I would bet on the second law to hold somehow, but I might be wrong. We need a Thermo wan Kenobi who really knows from quantum computing and the second law. Anyone here have buddies who are quantum hipsters with thermodynamics guru-ism? spike From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 20:43:30 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:43:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu., 23 Feb. 2017 at 2:10 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > HI Stathis, > Yes, we probably do need some emotional distance and thank you for being > so gracious kind patient and helpfull. I apologize if I have made this too > emotional. > > Can we back up a bit, and go over some things, so we can be sure there are > no miss underandings with some of this very complex stuff? > > For example do you understand what I mean by subjective qualitative > discern-ability? > I think you mean the subjective ability of a conscious being to tell the difference between two types off qualia, such as red and green. There are two aspects to the discernability. One is subjective, the other is objective and directly observable by an outsider. My point, which I have been going on and on about and which I still don't think you understand, is that if qualia were due to a particular structure or substance, such as red qualia from glutamate, it would be possible to decouple the subjective from the objective. By swapping glutamate for a glutamate-equivalent that behaves the same in the system but lacks the red qualia, the subject would be able to discern red from green and would say that everything looks just the same, but his red qualia would have either disappeared or changed. I don't think you understand that this MUST be the case if red qualia are due to glutamate. I suspect you think that if the glutamate changes, then the qualia change and so the behaviour must change as well; which is wrong, wrong, wrong. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 20:58:38 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:58:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: <45538938-1686-1edb-9db3-7f3cccad38ce@gmail.com> References: <45538938-1686-1edb-9db3-7f3cccad38ce@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 10:23 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?>> ? > On another issue I'd be interested if anybody disagrees with what I said a > few posts ago: > "if internal changes to a part produce no changes in the way that part > interacts with other parts then those internal changes make no change to > the overall behavior of the system." > ?> ? > Hi John, > Yes, there could be profound changes to the qualitative nature of the > part/system. For example, if you take a "part" that includes my 3 or more > components that are required for qualitative discern-ability ?Hi Brent, correct me if I'm wrong but ?I think ? you're saying that although information processing can produce something that's starting to ?look ? a lot like intelligence that can't be the fundamental way the human brain works because information processing can't explain qualia or ?? consciousness. You're not proposing anything supernatural ? ? you're saying there is some perfectly rational scientific process going on that we just haven't figured out yet, let's call it Process X. ? ? Being non-supernatural that means we can use our minds to examine what sort of thing it might turn out to be. Like information processing Process X can produce intelligence but in addition Process X can generate consciousness and a feeling of self, something mere information processing can't do.? ? ? What Process X does is certainly not simple, so it's very hard to avoid concluding that Process X itself is not simple. If it's complex it can't be made of only one thing, it must be made of parts. If Process X is not to act in a random, incoherent way some order must exist between the parts. A part must have some knowledge of what the other parts are doing ?,? and the only way to do that is with information. ? You could object to this and say communication among the parts is of only secondary importance and that the major work is done by the parts themselves, but then the parts themselves must be very complex and be made of sub parts. The simplest possible sub part is one that can change in only one way, say, on to off. It's getting extremely difficult to tell the difference between Process X and information processing. The only way to avoid this conclusion is if there is some ethereal substance that is all of one thing and has no parts thus is very simple, yet acts in a complex, intelligent way; and produces feeling and consciousness while it's at it. If you accept that, then I think the most honest thing to do would be to throw in the towel, call it a soul, and join the religious camp. ? But? I'm not ready to surrender to the forces of ? ? irrationality. ?I think? ? ? ?information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific method. Consider the similarities: ? ? The soul is non material and so is ? ? information. It's difficult to pin down a unique physical location for the soul, and the same is true for information. The soul is the essential, must have, part of consciousness, exactly the same situation is true for information. The soul is immortal and so, potentially, is information. ?But there are important differences too. A soul is unique but information can be duplicated. The soul is and will always remain unfathomable, but information is understandable, in fact information is the ONLY thing that is understandable. Information unambiguously exists, I don't think anyone would deny that, but if the soul exists it will never be proven scientifically. ?> ? > Additionally, If you have a part or binding mechanism that could be neuro > substituted the way Stathis proposes, it would lose the ability to properly > detect qualitative differences, when the representations of knowledge are > inverted, > Quite true, and that proves my point. ?As I said before, if all your representational knowledge of red and green were reversed no outside observer could objectively tell that anything had happened because your behavior would not change one iota, and subjectively you could not tell that anything strange had happened either. If reversing qualia makes no objective difference, and reversing qualia makes no subjective difference, then reversing qualia makes no difference *period*. This tells me that redness, like any qualia, can not exist in isolation; qualia is more complex than that and there must be some thing to be red for red to be meaningful, yes it may just be a memory but some thing has to be red. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 21:24:47 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:24:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Tim Draper VC In-Reply-To: <20170222121526.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.d970cd8481.wbe@email17.godaddy.com> References: <20170222121526.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.d970cd8481.wbe@email17.godaddy.com> Message-ID: Check out "Draper Associates" for some of his latest interests. He is looking for Internet-enabled ventures that replace traditional but inefficient approaches, that need help scaling to more customers. In other words, businesses where all or almost all of the engineering can be done on $0 (enough that the company has had its first few sales) before he even hears about the company, but then needs a lot of sales and marketing staff. He will apparently not seriously consider anything that needs investment (aside from the founders' own pockets and family/friends) for engineering prior to first sale, including anything that's developing hardware of any sort. On Feb 22, 2017 11:35 AM, wrote: Hi, Does anyone know Draper or have insights about his current projects (other than the Draper University, which seems to be similar to the SU). He is going to be on campus today with Q&A. Thx! Natasha Vita-More, Ph.D. http://www.natasha.cc _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 22 22:15:48 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:15:48 -0800 Subject: [ExI] seven exos, three goldilocks! Message-ID: <015101d28d59$38fa28d0$aaee7a70$@att.net> http://www.livescience.com/57975-seven-earth-size-planets-trappist-1-discovery.html?utm_source=notification Major Discovery! 7 Earth-Size Alien Planets Circle Nearby Star By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer | February 22, 2017 01:11pm ET Astronomers have never seen anything like this before: Seven Earth-size alien worlds orbit the same tiny, dim star, and all of them may be capable of supporting life as we know it, a new study reports. "Looking for life elsewhere, this system is probably our best bet as of today," study co-author Brice-Olivier Demory, a professor at the Center for Space and Habitability at the University of Bern in Switzerland, said in a statement. The exoplanets circle the star TRAPPIST-1, which lies just 39 light-years from Earth ? a mere stone's throw in the cosmic scheme of things. So speculation about the alien worlds' life-hosting potential should soon be informed by hard data, study team members said. [Images: The 7 Earth-Size Worlds of TRAPPIST-1] "We can expect that, within a few years, we will know a lot more about these planets, and with hope, if there is life there, [we will know] within a decade," co-author Amaury Triaud, of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge in England, told reporters on Tuesday (Feb. 21)? Cool! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Feb 22 22:18:22 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:18:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58AE0E2E.4000603@yahoo.com> Brent Allsop wrote: "Ben is definitely getting close with this realization he described below, but he doesn't quite have it all. The external behavior, that is the ability to verbally report (as in outside the black box behavior) qualitative differences inside the black box is possible and important too." I think you misunderstand me. When I said "I think Brent is of the opinion that it /does/ matter what goes on inside the black boxes of interacting parts", I meant 'black box' in the usual sense of a component that nobody is supposed to know or care anything about what goes on inside it. Saying "the ability to report differences inside the black box" is meaningless. You simply don't know what goes on inside the black box, period. That's the point of the concept. All you know is how it interacts with other components of a system. You talk about using a simplified model of things, this is how you do it. Use black boxes, so you can totally forget about what's inside them. "The goal is to make a very hard topic a little more simple. If one can understand the theory I'm trying to describe, ... then they should be able to apply the same theory in the more complex real world. All that is required is to test for, and find, experimentally, in the real world, what it is that takes the place of glutamate, glycene, aspartate, and the single neuron binding system" As I keep saying, this isn't going to work, because your 'simplified world' bears no relation to the real world. It's not a simplified model of reality, it's pure invention, as far as I can tell. If this 'fundamental redness' exists, as you claim, you need to explain what it is, and how we can demonstrate its existence first, otherwise this whole thing is going nowhere. What is it, and how does it relate to the things we already know such as action potentials, receptive fields, lateral inhibition, convergent and divergent networks, all that? Ben Zaiboc From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 23:05:07 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:05:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Yes, we are in agreement till you get to this: On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I suspect you think that if the glutamate changes, then the qualia change > and so the behaviour must change as well; which is wrong, wrong, wrong. > You seem to think that because the *Observable behaviour* (or the output of the system?) is the same, the qualitative state must be this same. But do you not see how in one of the steps of the neuro substitution, the system qualitatively inverts, (as can be proven in the objective way that I've described many times) and the qualitative definition of "red" for the system switches from redness to greenness? And despite this change, the output will still be the same giving the same "red is the same as red."? Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 23:18:32 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:18:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] seven exos, three goldilocks! In-Reply-To: <015101d28d59$38fa28d0$aaee7a70$@att.net> References: <015101d28d59$38fa28d0$aaee7a70$@att.net> Message-ID: <637C00F4-CCB4-463E-BE85-8F6E8F610877@gmail.com> On Feb 22, 2017, at 2:15 PM, spike wrote: > > > > http://www.livescience.com/57975-seven-earth-size-planets-trappist-1-discovery.html?utm_source=notification > > > > Major Discovery! 7 Earth-Size Alien Planets Circle Nearby Star > > By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer | February 22, 2017 01:11pm ET > > > Astronomers have never seen anything like this before: Seven Earth-size alien worlds orbit the same tiny, dim star, and all of them may be capable of supporting life as we know it, a new study reports. > > "Looking for life elsewhere, this system is probably our best bet as of today," study co-author Brice-Olivier Demory, a professor at the Center for Space and Habitability at the University of Bern in Switzerland, said in a statement. > > The exoplanets circle the star TRAPPIST-1, which lies just 39 light-years from Earth ? a mere stone's throw in the cosmic scheme of things. So speculation about the alien worlds' life-hosting potential should soon be informed by hard data, study team members said. [Images: The 7 Earth-Size Worlds of TRAPPIST-1] > > "We can expect that, within a few years, we will know a lot more about these planets, and with hope, if there is life there, [we will know] within a decade," co-author Amaury Triaud, of the Institute of Astronomy at the University of Cambridge in England, told reporters on Tuesday (Feb. 21)? > > > Cool! > > spike Way cool! Though I must admit I was initially afraid that spotted our staging area. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Feb 22 23:08:29 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:08:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] seven exos, three goldilocks! In-Reply-To: <015101d28d59$38fa28d0$aaee7a70$@att.net> References: <015101d28d59$38fa28d0$aaee7a70$@att.net> Message-ID: <01c101d28d60$96c2c790$c44856b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 2:16 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] seven exos, three goldilocks! http://www.livescience.com/57975-seven-earth-size-planets-trappist-1-discovery.html?utm_source=notification Major Discovery! 7 Earth-Size Alien Planets Circle Nearby Star By Mike Wall, Space.com Senior Writer | February 22, 2017 01:11pm ET An offlist friend suggested naming them after the seven deadly sins. The problem is that not all the deadly sins are even roughly equal in how much fun they are to commit. For instance, everybody wants to go get laid at Lust and go make some deals at Greed, maybe kick back and relax for a few weeks at Sloth, enjoy the excellent cuisine at Gluttony. But Pride is something you can do that one on any of the planets, and Envy is self-contradictory in a way: imagine going to a party there and eeeeverybody is covetous of everybody else. It doesn?t even make sense. Somebody there has to realize she really is better off than at least some of the others, ja? And Wrath, don?t eeeeven go there: it just isn?t much fun being in a place where everybody is pissed off. Saw it at Berkeley recently: no good. The big party is back over at Lust, having a good old time there, while they all just sit around at Wrath being annoyed at the lack of customers, but even that is a good thing: if anyone chose to go to Wrath voluntarily, you wouldn?t want them there. Khan Noonien Singh likes it there, but he?s just that way ya know. Counter-propose we name them after characters from Gilligan?s Island, with the three Goldilocks planets being Ginger, Mary Ann and Mrs. Howell in that order, with Mary Ann in the sweet spot. Lovey was a bit on the old side, or so I thought at the time, but now she doesn?t look half bad. Or we could name them after the continents, or days of the week, the dwarfs, members of the original Spike Jones band the Firehouse Five Plus Two, the main cast seasons 5 and 6 of ER, before the bastards killed Drs. Greene and Knight, that sorta thing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 01:48:16 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:48:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > You seem to think that because the *Observable behaviour* (or the output > of the system?) is the same, the qualitative state must be this same. > ?That is most certainly what I think, especially if one of those observable behaviors is the individual in question making a noise with his mouth that sounds like: *"I feel exactly the same, and if you really have made a change of some sort in the internal operation of my neurons as you claim to have made then those changes have produce no difference that I am conscious of." * ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 02:36:02 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:36:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV - chilling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > A PPP poll shows that 51% of Trump supporters think that the President > should be able to overturn any judicial ruling he doesn't like. > I'm not surprised. 51% of Trump voters also belied 2 Iraqi illegal aliens commuted the infamous Bowling Green Massacre. And 62% of Trump voters believe millions of illegal votes were cast for Clinton. And 48% of Trump voters still think president Obama was born in Kenya. And ?46% of Trump voters believe Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile child sex slave ring out of the basement of a pizza parlor in Washington DC that has no basement. And why do Trump voters believe all that nonsense? Because Trump voters are gullible fools. > ?> ? > It's not just Trump that's the problem we now have. > ?The problem is with the American voters who allowed a ignorant thin skinned megalomaniac who likes to pick fights with reality get his hands on the nuclear button. They should be ashamed of themselves. And we should all be scared. ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 03:23:59 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:23:59 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Theoretical Breakthrough? Was Re: Do digital computers feel? In-Reply-To: References: <8b96401b-fcfc-ba8d-acd4-92b58b3b8901@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 23 February 2017 at 10:05, Brent Allsop wrote: You seem to think that because the *Observable behaviour* (or the output of > the system?) is the same, the qualitative state must be this same. But do > you not see how in one of the steps of the neuro substitution, the system > qualitatively inverts, (as can be proven in the objective way that I've > described many times) and the qualitative definition of "red" for the > system switches from redness to greenness? And despite this change, the > output will still be the same giving the same "red is the same as red."? > And here is the problem! The *observable behaviour* stays the same as the result of the neural substitution but the qualia change. Instead of red strawberries the subject starts seeing green strawberries; or perhaps not strawberries at all, but a terrifying fire-breathing dragon. This becomes even more terrifying because, even though he tries to scream out that this is a nightmare, his mouth makes the following calm-sounding noises (quoting John Clark): *"I feel exactly the same, and if you really have made a change of some sort in the internal operation of my neurons as you claim to have made then those changes have produce no difference that I am conscious of."* -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gjlewis37 at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 11:19:10 2017 From: gjlewis37 at gmail.com (Gregory Lewis) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:19:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: <00c801d28d44$684cec90$38e6c5b0$@att.net> References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> <00c801d28d44$684cec90$38e6c5b0$@att.net> Message-ID: I'd defer to Anders, but my understanding is it is paradoxically challenging to keep things cold in space. Space is also a vacuum as well as at ~ 3k, thus objects principally lose energy by thermal radiation, which is much slower than convection etc. on earth. (I note the ISS has a pretty involved cooling system, for example). On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf > Of BillK > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:34 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 > > On 22 February 2017 at 15:39, spike wrote: > >>... WOW good question BillK. How are they powered? > > > > >...Well, nobody has built a proper quantum computer yet, (not counting > D-Wave), so we don't know yet. > Current estimate is 4 to 5 years. > See: > technologies-2017 > -practical-quantum-computing/> > for some of the latest news. > > >...The labs described there use tiny chips inside big refrigerators to get > the chips down to near absolute zero. In space, the fridges would > disappear. > The processing depends on the manipulation of qubits, which currently > (during research) can take various forms. e.g. polarization of photons or > spin of electrons, etc. So the power requirements should be less than > current computers, maybe even negligible. > > >...We'll have to wait and see. :) > > >...BillK > _______________________________________________ > > > > Ja. I need to make sure I understand this from an entropy point of view. > If computing is taking place, entropy is decreasing: we are finding answers > and arranging bits in a particular way. If we really understand the hell > out of the second law of thermodynamics we should be able to get this one, > but I don't know if quantum computing does some kind of weird Heisenberg > voodoo to get around what I have always understood to be the way it works. > > I would bet on the second law to hold somehow, but I might be wrong. > > We need a Thermo wan Kenobi who really knows from quantum computing and the > second law. Anyone here have buddies who are quantum hipsters with > thermodynamics guru-ism? > > 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 pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 12:07:29 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:07:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> <00c801d28d44$684cec90$38e6c5b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 23 February 2017 at 11:19, Gregory Lewis wrote: > I'd defer to Anders, but my understanding is it is paradoxically challenging > to keep things cold in space. Space is also a vacuum as well as at ~ 3k, > thus objects principally lose energy by thermal radiation, which is much > slower than convection etc. on earth. > > (I note the ISS has a pretty involved cooling system, for example). > Agreed, but that is because humans are involved and the ISS is close to the sun. The ISS solar panels need their own cooling system to stop them getting too hot. Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C). So insulation is required. and thermal radiators to get rid of internal heat generation. A space quantum computer system with no requirement to support humans could be further away from the sun, on the dark side of an asteroid, with solar panels on the sunlit side to provide energy. (And probably solar panels then would be much more efficient than we have today). Assuming quantum computers use little energy and generate little heat, then thermal radiators should easily get rid of any excess heat. But it would be useful to get Anders opinion! :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 12:40:56 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:40:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] A Bee Mogul Confronts the Crisis in His Field Message-ID: Beekeeping on an industrial scale is central to American agriculture, and ?colony collapse? has proved to be a severe test. By STEPHANIE STROMFEB. 16, 2017 Quotes: ?Every year at this time of year, we wonder are there going to be enough bees,? said Bob Curtis, director of agricultural affairs at the Almond Board, a trade group for almond growers. Whatever the reason, in the year that ended in April 2016, 44 percent of the overall commercial bee population died. In a typical year before the plague, only 10 percent to 15 percent would have died. He attributes this year?s relative good fortune to the decline last summer of soy aphids, a tiny, translucent, invasive insect from Asia that devastates soybean crops in America. Fewer of the pests meant that many soybean farmers in South Dakota delivered only one application of the pesticide known as neonicotinoids, Mr. Adee said, and the spraying occurred before the arrival of his bees. ?The more you study it, the more obvious it becomes: the relationship between the pesticides that have been sprayed everywhere over the last 10 years and what?s happening to bees,? Mr. Adee said. ---------------------- Interesting article about how the beekeepers are surviving. BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Feb 23 16:03:44 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:03:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> <00c801d28d44$684cec90$38e6c5b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <007501d28dee$6965d560$3c318020$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Gregory Lewis Subject: Re: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 >?I'd defer to Anders, Ja, a lotta times Anders consults me on this specific area, while I consult him on every other matter in life. But in his absence, I will stand in for him. I am a quarter Swedish, and if you gave me a brain implant which added about 200 IQ points, I would consider myself worthy to change my name to Anders Jones. >?but my understanding is it is paradoxically challenging to keep things cold in space? This close in to the sun, cooling a big challenge and often a mission limiter. >?Space is also a vacuum as well as at ~ 3k, thus objects principally lose energy by thermal radiation? Ja, radiation is the only way to reject heat. You can conduct heat away if you have a colder object right there available, but it won?t stay cold long. >?which is much slower than convection etc. on earth? Convection dominates everything down here. We forget how hard it is to make our stuff work in a vacuum. Your cell phone won?t work in a vacuum for very long >?(I note the ISS has a pretty involved cooling system, for example)? Dealing with space-based radiators caused me to really think hard about entropy in an M-Brain. If you are the designer making electrical power from solar panels and doing life support stuff such as the space station, you must pay close attention to the entropy of the energy you reject into space. If the cooling cycle is more efficient (extracts more heat) then it requires bigger radiators to reject the waste heat, since the entropy of the coolant is higher. If you don?t have a clear view out into cold space, that impacts the calculation as well. Think on those two things, then using equations derived from the second law of thermodynamics, we should be able to estimate how much entropy we can produce in any solar powered anything without overheating. spike On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, spike > wrote: -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org ] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 11:34 AM To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 On 22 February 2017 at 15:39, spike wrote: >>... WOW good question BillK. How are they powered? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 00:19:42 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:19:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] seven exos, three goldilocks! In-Reply-To: <01c101d28d60$96c2c790$c44856b0$@att.net> References: <015101d28d59$38fa28d0$aaee7a70$@att.net> <01c101d28d60$96c2c790$c44856b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Feb 22, 2017 3:23 PM, "spike" wrote: An offlist friend suggested naming them after the seven deadly sins. The problem is that not all the deadly sins are even roughly equal in how much fun they are to commit. So save the best three for the ones in the habitable zone. For instance, everybody wants to go get laid at Lust and go make some deals at Greed, maybe kick back and relax for a few weeks at Sloth, enjoy the excellent cuisine at Gluttony. There you go. Maybe make Sloth the outermost planet, with the slowest "years". Sloth won't mind. Envy is self-contradictory in a way: imagine going to a party there and eeeeverybody is covetous of everybody else. It doesn?t even make sense. Somebody there has to realize she really is better off than at least some of the others, ja? No, actually. As I wrote in a story a long time ago, you don't (usually) know when someone is worshipping you. It is entirely possible, and frankly more common than is realized, to be jealous of the positive attributes one sees in others and be unaware of, or at least grossly underestimate, how much of that is returned - assuming there is anything that (others believe) you do well, which is the case for most people. (You don't have to star at everything to star at something.) So maybe, inner to outer: Pride (#1), Envy (#2), Wrath (end of the inner trio), Lust (most conducive to life from what I have seen so far), Gluttony (not as good but still potentially a breadbasket), Greed (colonizing this one is reaching), and Sloth (slowest years). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 06:35:00 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 07:35:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon Message-ID: Reuters: "The Trump administration has directed NASA to study whether it is feasible to fly astronauts on the debut flight of the agency?s heavy-lift rocket, a mission currently planned to be unmanned and targeted to launch in late 2018." "Engineers are assessing hardware changes, schedule delays, additional costs and increased risks of flying a two-member crew on the first flight of the Space Launch System rocket, which is about four times bigger and more powerful than any current U.S. booster." http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-nasa-idUSKBN1632B2 NASA: "NASA is assessing the feasibility of adding a crew to the first integrated flight of the agency?s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft, Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1). NASA is building new deep space capabilities to take humans farther into the solar system than we have ever traveled, and ultimately to Mars." "During the first mission of SLS and Orion, NASA plans to send the spacecraft into a distant lunar retrograde orbit, which will require additional propulsion moves, a flyby of the moon and return trajectory burns. The mission is planned as a challenging trajectory to test maneuvers and the environment of space expected on future missions to deep space. If the agency decides to put crew on the first flight, the mission profile for Exploration Mission-2 would likely replace it, which is an approximately eight-day mission with a multi-translunar injection with a free return trajectory." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-kicks-off-study-to-add-crew-to-first-flight-of-orion-sls-as-progress-continues-to-send Of course the plan will be criticized and demonized because it comes from the Trump administration. But I think this mission could revive our enthusiasm for manned space exploration and prepare the way for a magic decade, the "roaring twenties" inspired by the magic sixties. There are of course safety concerns, but if I were a candidate astronaut I would sign up without thinking twice. In 1968 the Apollo 8 Christmas mission around the Moon was the best Christmas gift to our generation. Please NASA, give us and the next generations an awesome Christmas gift next year. From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 07:11:52 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:11:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Eh...Trump administration aside, putting a live crew on the maiden voyage of any new rocket seems kind of "flags and footprint"ish. That said, this is assuming they do manage to actually launch SLS next year. If not, it doesn't matter what was supposed to go on it. On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Reuters: "The Trump administration has directed NASA to study whether > it is feasible to fly astronauts on the debut flight of the agency?s > heavy-lift rocket, a mission currently planned to be unmanned and > targeted to launch in late 2018." > > "Engineers are assessing hardware changes, schedule delays, additional > costs and increased risks of flying a two-member crew on the first > flight of the Space Launch System rocket, which is about four times > bigger and more powerful than any current U.S. booster." > > http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-nasa-idUSKBN1632B2 > > NASA: "NASA is assessing the feasibility of adding a crew to the first > integrated flight of the agency?s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and > Orion spacecraft, Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1). NASA is building new > deep space capabilities to take humans farther into the solar system > than we have ever traveled, and ultimately to Mars." > > "During the first mission of SLS and Orion, NASA plans to send the > spacecraft into a distant lunar retrograde orbit, which will require > additional propulsion moves, a flyby of the moon and return trajectory > burns. The mission is planned as a challenging trajectory to test > maneuvers and the environment of space expected on future missions to > deep space. If the agency decides to put crew on the first flight, the > mission profile for Exploration Mission-2 would likely replace it, > which is an approximately eight-day mission with a multi-translunar > injection with a free return trajectory." > > https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-kicks-off-study-to-add-crew-to-first-flight-of-orion-sls-as-progress-continues-to-send > > Of course the plan will be criticized and demonized because it comes > from the Trump administration. But I think this mission could revive > our enthusiasm for manned space exploration and prepare the way for a > magic decade, the "roaring twenties" inspired by the magic sixties. > There are of course safety concerns, but if I were a candidate > astronaut I would sign up without thinking twice. > > In 1968 the Apollo 8 Christmas mission around the Moon was the best > Christmas gift to our generation. Please NASA, give us and the next > generations an awesome Christmas gift next year. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 07:23:54 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:23:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So was Apollo ("flags and footprint"ish). But it inspired a whole generation of dreamers, scientists and engineers who built great things, including the internet. Then the dream faded and we got 140 characters, useless apps&scams instead of flying cars and cities on the moon, as Peter Thiel wisely noted. Sometime you need flags and footprints to keep dreams alive. On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Eh...Trump administration aside, putting a live crew on the maiden > voyage of any new rocket seems kind of "flags and footprint"ish. > > That said, this is assuming they do manage to actually launch SLS next > year. If not, it doesn't matter what was supposed to go on it. > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> Reuters: "The Trump administration has directed NASA to study whether >> it is feasible to fly astronauts on the debut flight of the agency?s >> heavy-lift rocket, a mission currently planned to be unmanned and >> targeted to launch in late 2018." >> >> "Engineers are assessing hardware changes, schedule delays, additional >> costs and increased risks of flying a two-member crew on the first >> flight of the Space Launch System rocket, which is about four times >> bigger and more powerful than any current U.S. booster." >> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-nasa-idUSKBN1632B2 >> >> NASA: "NASA is assessing the feasibility of adding a crew to the first >> integrated flight of the agency?s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and >> Orion spacecraft, Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1). NASA is building new >> deep space capabilities to take humans farther into the solar system >> than we have ever traveled, and ultimately to Mars." >> >> "During the first mission of SLS and Orion, NASA plans to send the >> spacecraft into a distant lunar retrograde orbit, which will require >> additional propulsion moves, a flyby of the moon and return trajectory >> burns. The mission is planned as a challenging trajectory to test >> maneuvers and the environment of space expected on future missions to >> deep space. If the agency decides to put crew on the first flight, the >> mission profile for Exploration Mission-2 would likely replace it, >> which is an approximately eight-day mission with a multi-translunar >> injection with a free return trajectory." >> >> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-kicks-off-study-to-add-crew-to-first-flight-of-orion-sls-as-progress-continues-to-send >> >> Of course the plan will be criticized and demonized because it comes >> from the Trump administration. But I think this mission could revive >> our enthusiasm for manned space exploration and prepare the way for a >> magic decade, the "roaring twenties" inspired by the magic sixties. >> There are of course safety concerns, but if I were a candidate >> astronaut I would sign up without thinking twice. >> >> In 1968 the Apollo 8 Christmas mission around the Moon was the best >> Christmas gift to our generation. Please NASA, give us and the next >> generations an awesome Christmas gift next year. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 07:33:33 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 23:33:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3502C134-22F2-4CD0-8DCD-BA2BA588C8FE@gmail.com> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:23 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > So was Apollo ("flags and footprint"ish). But it inspired a whole > generation of dreamers, scientists and engineers who built great > things, including the internet. > > Then the dream faded and we got 140 characters, useless apps&scams > instead of flying cars and cities on the moon, as Peter Thiel wisely > noted. > > Sometime you need flags and footprints to keep dreams alive. Whoa! I'm o a younger generation. The baby boomers were promised flying cars and all that. My generation was promised a postindustrial dystopia. It seems like we'll get that first. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 09:28:25 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:28:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: <3502C134-22F2-4CD0-8DCD-BA2BA588C8FE@gmail.com> References: <3502C134-22F2-4CD0-8DCD-BA2BA588C8FE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dan, I would say that your generation was threatened with (not promised) a postindustrial dystopia, and the threat is being carried out as we speak. Now, how about joining us geezers and going back to space? On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:23 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > So was Apollo ("flags and footprint"ish). But it inspired a whole > generation of dreamers, scientists and engineers who built great > things, including the internet. > > Then the dream faded and we got 140 characters, useless apps&scams > instead of flying cars and cities on the moon, as Peter Thiel wisely > noted. > > Sometime you need flags and footprints to keep dreams alive. > > > Whoa! I'm o a younger generation. The baby boomers were promised flying cars > and all that. My generation was promised a postindustrial dystopia. It seems > like we'll get that first. ;) > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 16:11:06 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 08:11:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: <3502C134-22F2-4CD0-8DCD-BA2BA588C8FE@gmail.com> Message-ID: <271F76F6-2340-4F96-82DE-300FD38F748C@gmail.com> On Feb 25, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Dan, I would say that your generation was threatened with (not > promised) a postindustrial dystopia, and the threat is being carried > out as we speak. Now, how about joining us geezers and going back to > space? > >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:23 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> >> So was Apollo ("flags and footprint"ish). But it inspired a whole >> generation of dreamers, scientists and engineers who built great >> things, including the internet. >> >> Then the dream faded and we got 140 characters, useless apps&scams >> instead of flying cars and cities on the moon, as Peter Thiel wisely >> noted. >> >> Sometime you need flags and footprints to keep dreams alive. >> >> Whoa! I'm o[f] a younger generation. The baby boomers were promised flying cars >> and all that. My generation was promised a postindustrial dystopia. It seems >> like we'll get that first. ;) Of course, I prefer space exploration to postindustrial dystopia, but it looks to me like we're getting a tiny bit of the former with a huge helping of the latter, no? Don't let me be too negative here. If you have suggestions on how to change the ratio in favor of the former, please share them. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 16:59:49 2017 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 13:59:49 -0300 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19928c36-0454-fc3f-6347-2e1e88ac5698@gmail.com> Going to the moon just for the sake of it is useless. Staying there is what matters. On 25/02/2017 03:35, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Reuters: "The Trump administration has directed NASA to study whether > it is feasible to fly astronauts on the debut flight of the agency?s > heavy-lift rocket, a mission currently planned to be unmanned and > targeted to launch in late 2018." > > "Engineers are assessing hardware changes, schedule delays, additional > costs and increased risks of flying a two-member crew on the first > flight of the Space Launch System rocket, which is about four times > bigger and more powerful than any current U.S. booster." > > http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-nasa-idUSKBN1632B2 > From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:03:37 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:03:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: <19928c36-0454-fc3f-6347-2e1e88ac5698@gmail.com> References: <19928c36-0454-fc3f-6347-2e1e88ac5698@gmail.com> Message-ID: Right. Let's go back to the Moon and try to do better than last time. On 2017. Feb 25., Sat at 18:00, Henrique Moraes Machado < cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com> wrote: > Going to the moon just for the sake of it is useless. Staying there is > what matters. > > > On 25/02/2017 03:35, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > Reuters: "The Trump administration has directed NASA to study whether > > it is feasible to fly astronauts on the debut flight of the agency?s > > heavy-lift rocket, a mission currently planned to be unmanned and > > targeted to launch in late 2018." > > > > "Engineers are assessing hardware changes, schedule delays, additional > > costs and increased risks of flying a two-member crew on the first > > flight of the Space Launch System rocket, which is about four times > > bigger and more powerful than any current U.S. booster." > > > > http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-nasa-idUSKBN1632B2 > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:07:51 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:07:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: <19928c36-0454-fc3f-6347-2e1e88ac5698@gmail.com> References: <19928c36-0454-fc3f-6347-2e1e88ac5698@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 25, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > Going to the moon just for the sake of it is useless. Staying there is what matters. True. It's not unreasonable to think a flashy lunar mission might simply end in another Apollo debacle. Of course, it's a different context now with private spaceflight and even nations like India starting to become big players. The US government might waste billions on an Apollo redux, but it's no longer a world where just two national governments own the field. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:13:53 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:13:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: <19928c36-0454-fc3f-6347-2e1e88ac5698@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2C73192A-AAC1-4168-B972-E8691219D607@gmail.com> On Feb 25, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Right. Let's go back to the Moon and try to do better than last time. Sure, but how? And by this I don't mean offering up just a plan of what to do on the Moon -- build several bases, start up lunar tourism, etc. -- but how to implement that plan rather than just discuss it here. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:31:25 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:31:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: <271F76F6-2340-4F96-82DE-300FD38F748C@gmail.com> References: <3502C134-22F2-4CD0-8DCD-BA2BA588C8FE@gmail.com> <271F76F6-2340-4F96-82DE-300FD38F748C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 25 February 2017 at 16:11, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > Of course, I prefer space exploration to postindustrial dystopia, but it > looks to me like we're getting a tiny bit of the former with a huge helping > of the latter, no? Don't let me be too negative here. If you have > suggestions on how to change the ratio in favor of the former, please share > them. > For a while I have been very doubtful about the viability of humans moving away from earth. Even going to earth orbit costs a small fortune. The history of human exploration shows that initially small groups went looking for 'treasure' that they could bring back to their home country and make themselves rich. If a rich land was found then larger groups including families would move and settle in the new land. Sometimes this movement of population led to war if the new land was already occupied. Sometimes war, population growth or famine was the driving force behind the movement to new lands. How does this compare to space exploration? There seems to be little 'treasure' available compared to the cost of retrieving it. The Moon and planets are not suitable for human habitation. Going to Mars or the Moon is effectively volunteering for a harsh desert prison. Lengthy space travel outside LEO is deadly dangerous to the human body. I expect space travel to be for intelligent robots, or vastly changed posthumans. Perhaps if conditions on earth become too terrible (dystopia, famine, war, etc.) then humans will be forced to go into space as their best chance for survival. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:32:37 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:32:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: <19928c36-0454-fc3f-6347-2e1e88ac5698@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: ?> ? > Right. Let's go back to the Moon and try to do better than last time. > ?There is an easy test to determine when technology? ?has advanced enough to send astronauts to the Moon or to Mars, when you're prepared to send thim with a one way ticket. It always seemed ridiculous to spend huge amounts of money to send humans to a distant astronomical body and then spend even more money to undo what you just did and bring them back. John k Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 17:50:05 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:50:05 +0000 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: <3502C134-22F2-4CD0-8DCD-BA2BA588C8FE@gmail.com> <271F76F6-2340-4F96-82DE-300FD38F748C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:32 PM BillK wrote: > I expect space travel to be for intelligent robots, or vastly changed > post humans. Perhaps if conditions on earth become too terrible > (dystopia, famine, war, etc.) then humans will be forced to go into > space as their best chance for survival. I used to think so, but now I am persuaded we shouldn't wait: we need to be in space for our mental health as a specie. Think of the enormous difference between the zeitgeist of the 60s, or even the 90s, and our sad post-911 world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 18:34:49 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 10:34:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > So was Apollo ("flags and footprint"ish). But it inspired a whole > generation of dreamers, scientists and engineers who built great > things, including the internet. Apollo as a whole did. Apollo 1 just inspired better safety measures. I'm not saying the whole SLS series should be unmanned; I'm saying the first full mission should be. > > Then the dream faded and we got 140 characters, useless apps&scams > instead of flying cars and cities on the moon, as Peter Thiel wisely > noted. > > Sometime you need flags and footprints to keep dreams alive. > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 8:11 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> Eh...Trump administration aside, putting a live crew on the maiden >> voyage of any new rocket seems kind of "flags and footprint"ish. >> >> That said, this is assuming they do manage to actually launch SLS next >> year. If not, it doesn't matter what was supposed to go on it. >> >> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>> Reuters: "The Trump administration has directed NASA to study whether >>> it is feasible to fly astronauts on the debut flight of the agency?s >>> heavy-lift rocket, a mission currently planned to be unmanned and >>> targeted to launch in late 2018." >>> >>> "Engineers are assessing hardware changes, schedule delays, additional >>> costs and increased risks of flying a two-member crew on the first >>> flight of the Space Launch System rocket, which is about four times >>> bigger and more powerful than any current U.S. booster." >>> >>> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-nasa-idUSKBN1632B2 >>> >>> NASA: "NASA is assessing the feasibility of adding a crew to the first >>> integrated flight of the agency?s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and >>> Orion spacecraft, Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1). NASA is building new >>> deep space capabilities to take humans farther into the solar system >>> than we have ever traveled, and ultimately to Mars." >>> >>> "During the first mission of SLS and Orion, NASA plans to send the >>> spacecraft into a distant lunar retrograde orbit, which will require >>> additional propulsion moves, a flyby of the moon and return trajectory >>> burns. The mission is planned as a challenging trajectory to test >>> maneuvers and the environment of space expected on future missions to >>> deep space. If the agency decides to put crew on the first flight, the >>> mission profile for Exploration Mission-2 would likely replace it, >>> which is an approximately eight-day mission with a multi-translunar >>> injection with a free return trajectory." >>> >>> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-kicks-off-study-to-add-crew-to-first-flight-of-orion-sls-as-progress-continues-to-send >>> >>> Of course the plan will be criticized and demonized because it comes >>> from the Trump administration. But I think this mission could revive >>> our enthusiasm for manned space exploration and prepare the way for a >>> magic decade, the "roaring twenties" inspired by the magic sixties. >>> There are of course safety concerns, but if I were a candidate >>> astronaut I would sign up without thinking twice. >>> >>> In 1968 the Apollo 8 Christmas mission around the Moon was the best >>> Christmas gift to our generation. Please NASA, give us and the next >>> generations an awesome Christmas gift next year. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 18:49:55 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 18:49:55 +0000 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:35 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > So was Apollo ("flags and footprint"ish). But it inspired a whole > > generation of dreamers, scientists and engineers who built great > > things, including the internet. > > Apollo as a whole did. Apollo 1 just inspired better safety measures. > I'm not saying the whole SLS series should be unmanned; I'm saying the > first full mission should be As a former aerospace engineer and manager, and as a person with some practical common sense, I guess I have to agree. But the yoong science fiction fan in me (he's still here you know) wishes to see some bold, irresponsible move to space, to compensate for the dullness of the last few decades. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 19:01:59 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:01:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: <3502C134-22F2-4CD0-8DCD-BA2BA588C8FE@gmail.com> <271F76F6-2340-4F96-82DE-300FD38F748C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:31 AM, BillK wrote: > For a while I have been very doubtful about the viability of humans > moving away from earth. Even going to earth orbit costs a small > fortune. > > The history of human exploration shows that initially small groups > went looking for 'treasure' that they could bring back to their home > country and make themselves rich. If a rich land was found then larger > groups including families would move and settle in the new land. > Sometimes this movement of population led to war if the new land was > already occupied. Sometimes war, population growth or famine was the > driving force behind the movement to new lands. > > How does this compare to space exploration? > > There seems to be little 'treasure' available compared to the cost of > retrieving it. The Moon and planets are not suitable for human > habitation. Going to Mars or the Moon is effectively volunteering for > a harsh desert prison. > Lengthy space travel outside LEO is deadly dangerous to the human body. Similar thoughts are why I currently believe the best chance at starting up permanent off-Earth human habitation is roughly like so: * Find a mineral-rich asteroid - something that, if mined and returned to Earth, would at least more than repay the cost of the venture. It doesn't have to be extreme large, but it has to be big enough that it can repay startup costs once mined and returned to Earth. (There is not yet enough in-orbit market for delivery to other orbital destinations to significantly assist with this, so assume that won't come into play until after the startup costs are paid off.) * Move it into GEO (exact altitude can vary, but there's a large slice of unused GEO over the Pacific, so this may minimize complaints about polluting the orbital environment with pebbles). * Set up automated mining, refining, and Earth return. Start getting first payloads back to Earth, and first revenue. (This is a far more important step than most people appreciate.) * After, and only after, first revenue is realized, have the facility construct the shell of a habitat from "waste" material (likely iron, nickel, and stone). Ship up air and furnishings, * Ship up some people to oversee operations, and to make them more efficient. * Use the gains from that to justify diverting more "waste" material to make a soda-can-shaped cylinder, 1-2 km across but probably less than 1 km from "lid" to "lid" at first. Pressurize and furnish that, spin it up, and move operations there. Line the inside of the outer rim with water and plants to try to make it agriculturally self-sufficient, to lower resupply costs (and help with radiation shielding). * Et voila: a habitat with artificial gravity and (if the shell is thick enough) radiation protection. * Expand the on-site team until it is at least a mining town. Perhaps lease space to various science teams (national government funded or otherwise) and/or zero-G manufacturing operations. * Add secondary services (hospitals, schools, police, and so on) as the population expands to justify them - including the population brought in by those secondary services. Expand the habitat every so often by building a new "lid" further along, with walls leading to it, then (once secure and pressurized) dismantle the older, inner, now-obsolete "lid". In crude ASCII art: ** Start with )==( ** Build a new lid and walls to get )==)==( ** Dismantle inner, obsolete lid and wind up with )=====( * Use the demonstrated (by this point) quality of living - no natural disasters, abundant (by this point) on-site food supply, and so on - to attract more colonists. * Once the initial habitat is long enough that adding more length becomes unwieldy, build a second habitat, attached but rotating in the opposite direction. Eventually build more, likely in counter-rotating pairs. There's more beyond that, but that's the best start I see so far. From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 19:07:40 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:07:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:35 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: >> I'm not saying the whole SLS series should be unmanned; I'm saying the >> first full mission should be > > As a former aerospace engineer and manager, and as a person with some > practical common sense, I guess I have to agree. But the yoong science > fiction fan in me (he's still here you know) wishes to see some bold, > irresponsible move to space, to compensate for the dullness of the last few > decades. Heh. You want that, I'm working on one option. Do you happen to know anyone interested enough in launching CubeSats that they'd be willing to put up a few hundred thousand $ (preferably a few million $), in exchange for dedicated launches for their (or whoever they designate) CubeSats in 2-3 years? From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 19:12:16 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:12:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 7:35 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> I'm not saying the whole SLS series should be unmanned; I'm saying the >>> first full mission should be >> >> As a former aerospace engineer and manager, and as a person with some >> practical common sense, I guess I have to agree. But the yoong science >> fiction fan in me (he's still here you know) wishes to see some bold, >> irresponsible move to space, to compensate for the dullness of the last few >> decades. > > Heh. You want that, I'm working on one option. Do you happen to know > anyone interested enough in launching CubeSats that they'd be willing > to put up a few hundred thousand $ (preferably a few million $), in > exchange for dedicated launches for their (or whoever they designate) > CubeSats in 2-3 years? To clarify: CubeCab is taking preorders now - with more info than we're revealing in public. Anyone who wants to buy a launch, or preferably several (probably on behalf of your organization), contact me offlist for more info. Spike: we are in talks with LM to see if they want to play on this. By any chance do you know Robert Cleave? From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 25 19:19:17 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:19:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01d801d28f9c$0f793ec0$2e6bbc40$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >...To clarify: CubeCab is taking preorders now - with more info than we're revealing in public. Anyone who wants to buy a launch, or preferably several (probably on behalf of your organization), contact me offlist for more info... Seems like after the shuttle program ended there would be a market for this. >...Spike: we are in talks with LM to see if they want to play on this. By any chance do you know Robert Cleave? _______________________________________________ I do not. San Jose State U has (or had) a nano-sat program going. We did environmental testing on some of their projects a long time ago. Have you any contacts there? spike From atymes at gmail.com Sat Feb 25 22:35:17 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:35:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: <01d801d28f9c$0f793ec0$2e6bbc40$@att.net> References: <01d801d28f9c$0f793ec0$2e6bbc40$@att.net> Message-ID: >>...To clarify: CubeCab is taking preorders now - with more info than we're > revealing in public. Anyone who wants to buy a launch, or preferably > several (probably on behalf of your organization), contact me offlist for > more info... > > Seems like after the shuttle program ended there would be a market for this. We certainly think there is, and what market research we've done (including talking to a lot of would-be customers) strongly suggests there is. Problem is, we need money to build hardware to put stuff in orbit, most VCs won't invest until you have signed customers, and most customers won't sign until after we've put something in orbit. > San Jose State U has (or had) a nano-sat program going. We did > environmental testing on some of their projects a long time ago. Have you > any contacts there? Quite a few, but none (that we know of) that can be of use getting into LM. Do you still have any contacts at LM? From spike66 at att.net Sat Feb 25 22:54:12 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 14:54:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] NASA: go Go GO back to the moon In-Reply-To: References: <01d801d28f9c$0f793ec0$2e6bbc40$@att.net> Message-ID: <027201d28fba$15e2a670$41a7f350$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes spike wrote: >>... Seems like after the shuttle program ended there would be a market for this. >...We certainly think there is...most VCs won't invest until you have signed customers, and most customers won't sign until after we've put something in orbit... Ja. Early vision was that government effort in rocketry would train a bunch of people and kickstart an industry. It didn't really work out that way, as getting stuff to orbit remains remarkably difficult and expensive, even with all the cool new control stuff that has been developed. >...Do you still have any contacts at LM? _______________________________________________ None of any use unfortunately. A lot of us in my area retired at about the same time. I don't know much about what the next generation is doing there now. The classical controls guys are all gone now. I get notices often about the originals dropping dead (I got a really depressing one Wednesday.) These were the guys who invented a lot of the stuff we later classical controls guys studied and the now generation doesn't study at all, for they do all digital controls on Matlab. Some of them know what a Bode plot looks like, and can to some extent identify poles and zeros on a root locus diagram, maybe interpret a Nichols chart worth five cents. The heavy lifting is done by the computer, not just brute force calculation, but rather a lot of what we once thought of as engineering. I suppose it is analogous to all those closed-form optimization tricks we learned in school, now done by making a model with a spreadsheet and writing a script to just try a jillion different combinations. That must have caused similar consternation among the classical orbit mechanics guys who knew all the equations, when guys like me came along and discovered the classic discipline could be done on a cheap computer by Monte Carlo and other mathematically uncouth strategies. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Feb 26 01:28:18 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:28:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:33 PM, BillK wrote: ?>? > Well, nobody has built a proper quantum computer yet, (not counting > D-Wave), so we don't know yet. > ? > Current estimate is 4 to 5 years. > A D-wave type machine might be able to solve some problems and do so quantum mechanically but it wouldn't be Turing complete and be able to work on any problem as a general purpose computer can. Google and IBM have set there sights higher and are working on a true Turing complete Quantum Computer that would use ?s? uperconducting loops. Microsoft is working on the most advanced and riskiest design of all, a Topological Quantum Computer; it would use 2 dimensional ? quasi ?? particles called non-abelian anyons. ? The huge advantage non-abelian anyons ? ha ?ve? is that they would be vastly less ?s? susceptible to ?? quantum decoherence ? than anything else, so much so that a ? Topological Quantum Computer might be able to work at room temperature. ?Not only do you need to cool ?a superconducting loop ? but because of ? ?? quantum decoherence ? it only produces the correct results about 99.9% of the time. A large quantum computer would need a about ten nines so Google and IBM's machine would need massive amounts of expensive quantum error correcting circuitry. Microsoft's N on-abelian anyons ?would give you about seven nines of precision right at the start so much less correcting circuitry ? would be needed? ?.? ?T? he only disadvantage is that physicists are only 95% certain that non-abelian anyons ? exist. John K Clark > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Feb 27 15:37:45 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 07:37:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] pong bot Message-ID: <004801d2910f$71b35200$5519f600$@att.net> OK cool, robot playing ping pong: https://youtu.be/ive4sKkpCqs Yesterday was the Daytona 500. There's a sport that definitely needs robots in the mix. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 17:00:49 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 10:00:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> Message-ID: All you quantum computer experts. I know next to nothing about quantum computers. All I know is that some people claim they will be able to render crypto currency security no longer secure. What would you guys give the odds that something like quantum computers could sometimes make crypto currencies not work. And by "not work" I mean even if the crypto currencies significantly increase the size of the keys, which I would think would be easy for crypto currencies to do, i.e. even a quantum computer could never solve a 10K byte key right? Brent On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:28 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:33 PM, BillK wrote: > > ?>? >> Well, nobody has built a proper quantum computer yet, (not counting >> D-Wave), so we don't know yet. >> ? >> Current estimate is 4 to 5 years. >> > > A D-wave type machine might be able to solve some problems and do so > quantum mechanically but it wouldn't be Turing complete and be able to work > on any problem as a general purpose computer can. Google and IBM have set > there sights higher and are working on a true Turing complete Quantum > Computer that would use > ?s? > uperconducting loops. Microsoft is working on the most advanced and > riskiest design of all, a Topological Quantum Computer; it would use 2 > dimensional > ? > quasi > ?? > particles called non-abelian anyons. > > ? > The huge advantage non-abelian anyons > ? > ha > ?ve? > is that they would be vastly less > ?s? > susceptible to > ?? > quantum decoherence > ? > than anything else, so much so that a > ? > Topological Quantum Computer might be able to work at room temperature. > ?Not only do you need to cool ?a > superconducting loop > ? but because of ? > ?? > quantum decoherence > ? it only produces the correct results about 99.9% of the time. A large > quantum computer would need a about ten nines so Google and IBM's machine > would need massive amounts of expensive quantum error correcting circuitry. > Microsoft's N > on-abelian anyons > ?would give you about seven nines of precision right at the start so much > less > correcting circuitry > ? would be needed? > ?.? > > ?T? > he only disadvantage is that physicists are only 95% certain that > non-abelian anyons > ? exist. > > John K Clark > > > > > > >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 22:39:19 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:39:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue., 28 Feb. 2017 at 4:01 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > > All you quantum computer experts. > > I know next to nothing about quantum computers. All I know is that some > people claim they will be able to render crypto currency security no longer > secure. What would you guys give the odds that something like quantum > computers could sometimes make crypto currencies not work. And by "not > work" I mean even if the crypto currencies significantly increase the size > of the keys, which I would think would be easy for crypto currencies to do, > i.e. even a quantum computer could never solve a 10K byte key right? > Post-quantum cryptography is apparently a field of study: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 22:46:06 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:46:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2017 In-Reply-To: References: <006a01d28d21$e6411db0$b2c35910$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?>? > I know next to nothing about quantum computers. All I know is that some > people claim they will be able to render crypto currency security no longer > secure. What would you guys give the odds that something like quantum > computers could sometimes make crypto currencies not work. > ? Although useful for certain types of problems I doubt a D-wave type quantum machine would be much good at breaking codes because no matter how big you make it the thing is not Turing Complete and so it's not a true general purpose computer. But the machines Google, IBM and Microsoft are trying to build would be Turing Complete, so if they're successful then Bitcoin is ? dead ?,? ?and so? is ? RSA Diffie-Hellman ?,? Elliptic curve, and all currently used forms of ? public key cryptography. There still might be some hope if Lattice-based cryptography ? could be improved ?,? but right now keys they must use are impractically large. And there are more fundamental problems, although the very hardest lattice problems would probably be difficult even for a Quantum Computer to solve the average problem would not be. As a analogy not every super large number is difficult to factor (2^64 is remarkably easy) only some super large number are hard. RSA can find those hard to factor numbers simply by multiplying 2 prime numbers together, but nobody has yet found a easy way to pick out the few super hard lattice problems from the far more numerous easier ones. A similar flaw doomed knapsack ? encryption 20 years ago, before that people thought it would be a serious competitor to RSA. However if a Turing complete Quantum Computer is built the effect it will have on cryptography will be trivial compared to other changes it will bring to society. > ?> ? > even a quantum computer could never solve a 10K byte key right? > ?Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. I would need to think long and hard before I would dare say that even the best Quantum Computer could never solve X. About 10 years ago somebody calculated it would take the best supercomputer of the day 24 billion years to calculate the energy levels in ferredoxin ?, a protein ?used in photosynthesis. Microsoft says if their Quantum Computer works as they hope it should be able to do it in about an hour. Forget cryptography, the ability to do chemistry without test tubes is what will turn the world upside down. ? ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Feb 28 01:36:29 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 17:36:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] dilbert on mortality, cryonics and transhumanism Message-ID: <01a901d29163$15d1da70$41758f50$@att.net> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 49509 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 18:43:13 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:43:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP Message-ID: He did not get elected because of his views on anything. He's not a statesman nor a politician. What he is, is an entertainer. He got by far the most press last fall, even in the NYT, and given that name recognition is highly important in elections, that may have helped him win. Clinton had name recognition, of course, but much of it was negative and she was boring. Can you think of any case in which Hillary has been entertaining? Now people seem to want entertainment from everywhere, even including outside their phones. And we may be the world's best at providing entertainment. (Granted that much of it is of the hold-your-nose variety). That he doesn't know what he is doing, or at least doesn't seem to care about tthe consequences of it, does not at all detract from his entertainment value. Actually, the more outrageous he is, the more entertainment he provides and the more press he gets, and as we all know, negative press rarely hurts anyone. Ask the NYT. Now when that runs out, when people get tired of his act, we'll see if the Repubs will keep him. He may surprise us yet and be not too bad, though that is not my best reckoning. Bill W -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 19:50:00 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:50:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > He did not get elected because of his views on anything. He's not a > statesman nor a politician. What he is, is an entertainer. He got by far > the most press last fall, even in the NYT, and given that name recognition > is highly important in elections, that may have helped him win. Clinton > had name recognition, of course, but much of it was negative and she was > boring. Can you think of any case in which Hillary has been entertaining? > > Now people seem to want entertainment from everywhere, even including > outside their phones. And we may be the world's best at providing > entertainment. (Granted that much of it is of the hold-your-nose variety). > > That he doesn't know what he is doing, or at least doesn't seem to care > about tthe consequences of it, does not at all detract from his > entertainment value. Actually, the more outrageous he is, the more > entertainment he provides and the more press he gets, and as we all know, > negative press rarely hurts anyone. Ask the NYT. > > Now when that runs out, when people get tired of his act, we'll see if the > Repubs will keep him. He may surprise us yet and be not too bad, though > that is not my best reckoning. > Like most thinking Americans, I've been struggling to understand the Trump phenomenon. I don't think it's got anything to do with entertainment value: I think he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry people by echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. He's seen as a successful businessman, for some reason, and his lack of government experience is considered a plus, rather than a hindrance. To date he's produced few details of his supposed plans, but his faithful supporters believe in him and likely will attribute his inevitable failure to Democrats and Washington insiders (fake media, et al) who benefit from the current system. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 20:02:36 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:02:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are you arguing that there is not a current flexionic globalist system that benefits greatly from the status quo putting multinational corporations and bureaucratic global blocs above the level of a nation state? The entertainment is the gravy, it has very little to do with why he was elected. On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> He did not get elected because of his views on anything. He's not a >> statesman nor a politician. What he is, is an entertainer. He got by far >> the most press last fall, even in the NYT, and given that name recognition >> is highly important in elections, that may have helped him win. Clinton >> had name recognition, of course, but much of it was negative and she was >> boring. Can you think of any case in which Hillary has been entertaining? >> >> Now people seem to want entertainment from everywhere, even including >> outside their phones. And we may be the world's best at providing >> entertainment. (Granted that much of it is of the hold-your-nose variety). >> >> That he doesn't know what he is doing, or at least doesn't seem to care >> about tthe consequences of it, does not at all detract from his >> entertainment value. Actually, the more outrageous he is, the more >> entertainment he provides and the more press he gets, and as we all know, >> negative press rarely hurts anyone. Ask the NYT. >> >> Now when that runs out, when people get tired of his act, we'll see if >> the Repubs will keep him. He may surprise us yet and be not too bad, >> though that is not my best reckoning. >> > > Like most thinking Americans, I've been struggling to understand the Trump > phenomenon. I don't think it's got anything to do with entertainment value: > I think he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry people by > echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. He's seen as a successful > businessman, for some reason, and his lack of government experience is > considered a plus, rather than a hindrance. To date he's produced few > details of his supposed plans, but his faithful supporters believe in him > and likely will attribute his inevitable failure to Democrats and > Washington insiders (fake media, et al) who benefit from the current system. > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 20:19:21 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:19:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > Are you arguing that there is not a current flexionic globalist system > that benefits greatly from the status quo putting multinational > corporations and bureaucratic global blocs above the level of a nation > state? > Me? Certainly not. At least I don't think so. Not sure what "flexionic" means. The entertainment is the gravy, it has very little to do with why he was > elected. > Agreed. -Dave On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> He did not get elected because of his views on anything. He's not a >> statesman nor a politician. What he is, is an entertainer. He got by far >> the most press last fall, even in the NYT, and given that name recognition >> is highly important in elections, that may have helped him win. Clinton >> had name recognition, of course, but much of it was negative and she was >> boring. Can you think of any case in which Hillary has been entertaining? >> >> Now people seem to want entertainment from everywhere, even including >> outside their phones. And we may be the world's best at providing >> entertainment. (Granted that much of it is of the hold-your-nose variety). >> >> That he doesn't know what he is doing, or at least doesn't seem to care >> about tthe consequences of it, does not at all detract from his >> entertainment value. Actually, the more outrageous he is, the more >> entertainment he provides and the more press he gets, and as we all know, >> negative press rarely hurts anyone. Ask the NYT. >> >> Now when that runs out, when people get tired of his act, we'll see if >> the Repubs will keep him. He may surprise us yet and be not too bad, >> though that is not my best reckoning. >> > > Like most thinking Americans, I've been struggling to understand the Trump > phenomenon. I don't think it's got anything to do with entertainment value: > I think he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry people by > echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. He's seen as a successful > businessman, for some reason, and his lack of government experience is > considered a plus, rather than a hindrance. To date he's produced few > details of his supposed plans, but his faithful supporters believe in him > and likely will attribute his inevitable failure to Democrats and > Washington insiders (fake media, et al) who benefit from the current system. > > -Dave > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 21:30:41 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:30:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies on the obscure lingo, it's used so heavily on another list I forgot my manners. It's a term coined by the author of the below book to talk about the interplay between actors who move back and forth between government and private industry to enrich themselves. She refers to them as flexions. https://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Elite-Undermine-Democracy-Government/dp/0465022014 On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > >> Are you arguing that there is not a current flexionic globalist system >> that benefits greatly from the status quo putting multinational >> corporations and bureaucratic global blocs above the level of a nation >> state? >> > > Me? Certainly not. At least I don't think so. Not sure what "flexionic" > means. > > The entertainment is the gravy, it has very little to do with why he was >> elected. >> > > Agreed. > > -Dave > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:43 PM, William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> He did not get elected because of his views on anything. He's not a >>> statesman nor a politician. What he is, is an entertainer. He got by far >>> the most press last fall, even in the NYT, and given that name recognition >>> is highly important in elections, that may have helped him win. Clinton >>> had name recognition, of course, but much of it was negative and she was >>> boring. Can you think of any case in which Hillary has been entertaining? >>> >>> Now people seem to want entertainment from everywhere, even including >>> outside their phones. And we may be the world's best at providing >>> entertainment. (Granted that much of it is of the hold-your-nose variety). >>> >>> That he doesn't know what he is doing, or at least doesn't seem to care >>> about tthe consequences of it, does not at all detract from his >>> entertainment value. Actually, the more outrageous he is, the more >>> entertainment he provides and the more press he gets, and as we all know, >>> negative press rarely hurts anyone. Ask the NYT. >>> >>> Now when that runs out, when people get tired of his act, we'll see if >>> the Repubs will keep him. He may surprise us yet and be not too bad, >>> though that is not my best reckoning. >>> >> >> Like most thinking Americans, I've been struggling to understand the >> Trump phenomenon. I don't think it's got anything to do with entertainment >> value: I think he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry people >> by echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. He's seen as a >> successful businessman, for some reason, and his lack of government >> experience is considered a plus, rather than a hindrance. To date he's >> produced few details of his supposed plans, but his faithful supporters >> believe in him and likely will attribute his inevitable failure to >> Democrats and Washington insiders (fake media, et al) who benefit from the >> current system. >> >> -Dave >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: