From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 18:30:26 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:30:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Dave Sill wrote: ?> ? > 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 strongly disagree. The Apprentice was a entertainment show, millions of people enjoyed the show and they inferred from that that they'd enjoy a Trump presidency too. They certainly didn't reach that conclusion through reason. > ?> ? > I think he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry people by > echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. > ?The gargantuan gap between rich and poor that is growing and accelerating would make anybody on the poor side of that canyon angry, and it's easy to see why they'd think setting loos a bull in a china shop would be entertaining, until they realize the china that is being broken is their own. Unlike many liberals Trump at least realized that the wealth gap is the defining political issue of our age, and he managed to sell millions of bottles of snake oil as a cure for this problem consisting of equal parts anti-free trade, anti free markets, anti-immigrants, higher military spending, lower taxes on the rich, and less health care for the poor. Yes Doctor Trump's patented cure is pure triple distilled extra virgin crap, but it sold. However Trump will never be stopped if his opponents pretend that the wealth gap isn't a problem. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 18:42:40 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:42:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:30 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > ?> ? >> 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 strongly disagree. The Apprentice was a entertainment show, millions of > people enjoyed the show and they inferred from that that they'd enjoy a > Trump presidency too. They certainly didn't reach that conclusion through > reason. > Yes, we are in strong disagreement. Trump's celebrity certainly helped him, but I don't think the vast majority of Trump voters said to themselves, "Well, this should be entertaining..." Reason/entertainment is a false dichotomy: just because it wasn't reason doesn't mean it was entertainment value. It could have emotion/fear/frustration/etc that led them to vote for Trump. ?> ? >> I think he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry people by >> echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. >> > > ?The gargantuan gap between rich and poor that is growing and accelerating > would make anybody on the poor side of that canyon angry, > Yeah, but, sadly, Trump voters weren't largely poor or even largely uneducated. Any anyone who thinks Trump is going to soak the rich or do anything to redistribute wealth to the poor is delusional. and it's easy to see why they'd think setting loos a bull in a china shop > would be entertaining, until they realize the china that is being broken is > their own. Unlike many liberals Trump at least realized that the wealth gap > is the defining political issue of our age, and he managed to sell millions > of bottles of snake oil as a cure for this problem consisting of equal > parts anti-free trade, anti free markets, anti-immigrants, higher military > spending, lower taxes on the rich, and less health care for the poor. Yes > Doctor Trump's patented cure is pure triple distilled extra virgin crap, > but it sold. However Trump will never be stopped if his opponents pretend > that the wealth gap isn't a problem. > Yes, like I said, he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry people by echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 19:33:10 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:33:10 +0000 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1 March 2017 at 18:42, Dave Sill wrote: > Yes, we are in strong disagreement. Trump's celebrity certainly helped him, > but I don't think the vast majority of Trump voters said to themselves, > "Well, this should be entertaining..." Reason/entertainment is a false > dichotomy: just because it wasn't reason doesn't mean it was entertainment > value. It could have emotion/fear/frustration/etc that led them to vote for > Trump. > > Yeah, but, sadly, Trump voters weren't largely poor or even largely > uneducated. Any anyone who thinks Trump is going to soak the rich or do > anything to redistribute wealth to the poor is delusional. > > Yes, like I said, he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry > people by echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. > Viewed from the outside (in the UK) I mostly agree with Dave. The USA seems to be split in half, roughly between the East/West coastal cities and the rest of the country in between. Each half just cannot understand how the other half thinks. It is as though they are two different worlds. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 22:34:33 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:34:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Dave Sill wrote: ?> ? > Trump's celebrity certainly helped him, > ?A vast understatement, there is no way Trump would be president today without that goddamn TV show "The apprentice". ? > ?> ? > but I don't think the vast majority of Trump voters said to themselves, > "Well, this should be entertaining..." > ?I think the mob that was screaming "*LOCK HER UP!*" at Trump's ?Nuremberg rallies were having even more fun then they had when they were watching "The apprentice". > ?> ? > Reason/entertainment is a false dichotomy: just because it wasn't reason > doesn't mean it was entertainment value. > ?I think they figure Trump did a good job as the MC on a entertainment show and they used induction to conclude that he ?would do a good job as Commander in ?Chief too. > ?> ? > It could have emotion/fear/frustration/etc that led them to vote for Trump. > ?I grant you that a creature ?like Trump could never be president if millions of people were not scared and frustrated by the enormous wealth gap. They were so scared they lost their reason and couldn't see the obvious fact that Trump would only make that gap even larger. This isn't going to end well. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 22:41:19 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 17:41:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think someone on this list has lost their reason. Hyperbole much on the Nuremberg comment? And I still haven't heard a suggestion from you on how to alleviate that wealth gap that doesn't involve forced redistribution (I include taxation under this umbrella since it is conducted at the barrel of a gun). Globalism has attempted to destroy the fabric and importance of sovereign nation states. This cycle that began with Brexit, followed by Trump, and possibly Le Pen is the blowback. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:34 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > ?> ? >> Trump's celebrity certainly helped him, >> > > ?A vast understatement, there is no way Trump would be president today > without that goddamn TV show "The apprentice". ? > > >> ?> ? >> but I don't think the vast majority of Trump voters said to themselves, >> "Well, this should be entertaining..." >> > > ?I think the mob that was screaming "*LOCK HER UP!*" at Trump's > ?Nuremberg rallies were having even more fun then they had when they were > watching "The apprentice". > > >> ?> ? >> Reason/entertainment is a false dichotomy: just because it wasn't reason >> doesn't mean it was entertainment value. >> > > ?I think they figure Trump did a good job as the MC on a entertainment > show and they used induction to conclude that he ?would do a good job as > Commander in > ?Chief > too. > > >> ?> ? >> It could have emotion/fear/frustration/etc that led them to vote for >> Trump. >> > > ?I grant you that a creature ?like Trump could never be president if > millions of people were not scared and frustrated by the enormous wealth > gap. They were so scared they lost their reason and couldn't see the > obvious fact that Trump would only make that gap even larger. This isn't > going to end well. > > 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 Thu Mar 2 00:31:30 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:31:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > ?> ? > Hyperbole much on the Nuremberg comment? > A man running for president whipping a mob into a frenzy chanting "LOCK HER UP!" doesn't chill your blood when the "her" in question is his political opponent? ?And a man running for president ? who says he will respect the results of the election only if he wins doesn't remand you of somebody who lived about 80 years ago? ? > ?> ? > And I still haven't heard a suggestion from you on how to alleviate that > wealth gap that doesn't involve forced redistribution (I include taxation > under this umbrella since it is conducted at the barrel of a gun). > ?I think reducing the wealth gap is impossible without taxation, and I agree that taxation is impossible without at least the shadow of a gun, and I think that is not compatible with ? classical liberalism dogma ? that I have believed in for ?most of my life ?. But I am even more certain that ? the ever accelerating wealth gap is not compatible with the continuation of civilization. Therefore a choice must be made. I choose ? civilization ? . And I have to say, if we are going to have any hope of surviving the Singularity we're going to have to make bigger compromises that that. ?That Singularity will change everything.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 00:40:53 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 19:40:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We'll have to disagree on the Nuremberg analogy. I didn't take his comment about not respecting the results of the elections seriously beyond him possibly legally challenging the results. I did not see a coup or civil war coming out of it. I won't share my personal thoughts on HRC and whether she should actually be locked up as it won't change either of our beliefs on the topic. I do agree with you that once it becomes apparent that the Singularity is actually happening that radical compromises will be necessary. I don't see it as being inevitable before the rise of strong (conscious) AI though. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:31 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> Hyperbole much on the Nuremberg comment? >> > > A man running for president whipping a mob into a frenzy chanting "LOCK > HER UP!" doesn't chill your blood when the "her" in question is his > political opponent? ?And a man > running for president > ? who says he will respect the results of the election only if he wins > doesn't remand you of somebody who lived about 80 years ago? ? > > >> ?> ? >> And I still haven't heard a suggestion from you on how to alleviate that >> wealth gap that doesn't involve forced redistribution (I include taxation >> under this umbrella since it is conducted at the barrel of a gun). >> > > ?I think reducing the wealth gap is impossible without taxation, and > I agree that taxation is impossible without at least the shadow of a gun, > and I think that is not compatible with > ? > classical liberalism dogma > ? > that I have believed in for > ?most > of my life > ?. > But I am even more certain that > ? > the ever accelerating wealth gap is not compatible with the continuation > of civilization. Therefore a choice must be made. I choose > ? > civilization > ? > . > > > And I have to say, if we are going to have any hope of surviving the > Singularity we're going to have to make bigger compromises that that. > ?That Singularity will change everything.? > > > 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 Thu Mar 2 01:48:48 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:48:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > ?> ? > I didn't take his comment about not respecting the results of the > elections seriously > ?I sure did! I think Trump would have caused as much stink as he could if he lost, but as just another citizen his power to cause trouble would have been limited. But now he's the most powerful man on Earth. What's going to happen in 2020 if he doesn't like the election results? ? > > ?> ? > I did not see a coup or civil war coming out of it. > ?There is one ray of hope, the man is just not very bright. A successful coup would need the help of the intelligence agencies and the fool has managed to made enemies of every single one of them. ? ?> ? > I do agree with you that once it becomes apparent that the Singularity is > actually happening that radical compromises will be necessary. > ? When it ? becomes apparent that ? we're already in the ? Singularity ? it will be far too late to do anything except hang on and hope for the best. But we're not at that point yet, although ?both ? the singularity and the accelerating wealth gap have the same root cause, improvements in technology. And this is just the tip on the iceberg. We simply can't treat it as business as usual and expect to survive. And if that means some libertarian dogma needs to be changed so be it; ideas I would have vigorously defended just a few years ago I just can't do anymore. They worked then, but not now. ? ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 02:36:42 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:36:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Earliest evidence of life Message-ID: The Journal nature reports on evidence of life that is at least 3.77 ?billion ? and might be as old as 4.28 billion years. It was found in a ancient hydrothermal vent in Quebec. Even the younger figure would be the oldest sign of life ever found. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7643/full/nature21377.html John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 03:01:41 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 22:01:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Earliest evidence of life In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was excited to see that news earlier today. While I am not as sanguine as I once was on ever seeing signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life while I exist, this makes an even stronger case that microbial life is a common scenario in the universe. I really hope we get to Europa and get through the ice before I kick off. I think finding even microbial life somewhere else in the solar system would go a long way towards unifying Terrans, but perhaps I'm being overly optimistic on the human side of things. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:36 PM, John Clark wrote: > The Journal nature reports on evidence of life that is at least 3.77 > ?billion ? > and might be as old as 4.28 billion years. It was found in a ancient > hydrothermal vent in Quebec. Even the younger figure would be the oldest > sign of life ever found. > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7643/full/nature21377.html > > 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 giulio at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 06:18:48 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 07:18:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Living space culture: Black sky thinker Rachel Armstrong Message-ID: This post is inspired by ongoing developments in space and by the ideas of Rachel Armstrong, a ?black sky thinker? and the main author of ?Star Ark: A Living, Self-Sustaining Spaceship,? a really awesome 2017 book... https://turingchurch.net/living-space-culture-black-sky-thinker-rachel-armstrong-3099d9cd6d69 From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 07:32:24 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 23:32:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Living space culture: Black sky thinker Rachel Armstrong In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "The obstacles aren't financial (we spend much more on war and useless gadgets)..." Yes they are financial, actually. Get the money devoted to it, and lunar colonization will happen. A lot more people believe war, right now, is necessary for survival than believe lunar colonization, right now, is necessary for survival. This isn't really something that can be changed, unless one had enough money that one could just do the colonization project anyway. The "we" who spend on "useless gadgets" get short term, immediate gratification that the process of lunar colonization can not replicate, at least until after the money's mostly spent. So you have to come up with rewards and incentives - real ones, that enough actual people will actually buy into. The long-term good of having a lunar settlement is demonstrably woefully insufficient (from many, many attempts to raise the funding with that as the sole reward), so you have to come up with something far more. On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > This post is inspired by ongoing developments in space and by the > ideas of Rachel Armstrong, a ?black sky thinker? and the main author > of ?Star Ark: A Living, Self-Sustaining Spaceship,? a really awesome > 2017 book... > > https://turingchurch.net/living-space-culture-black-sky-thinker-rachel-armstrong-3099d9cd6d69 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Thu Mar 2 07:41:44 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:41:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Living space culture: Black sky thinker Rachel Armstrong In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That's exactly my point: the challenge for us space enthusiasts is how to fall in love with space again, as a society. On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > "The obstacles aren't financial (we spend much more on war and useless > gadgets)..." > > Yes they are financial, actually. Get the money devoted to it, and > lunar colonization will happen. > > A lot more people believe war, right now, is necessary for survival > than believe lunar colonization, right now, is necessary for survival. > This isn't really something that can be changed, unless one had enough > money that one could just do the colonization project anyway. > > The "we" who spend on "useless gadgets" get short term, immediate > gratification that the process of lunar colonization can not > replicate, at least until after the money's mostly spent. > > So you have to come up with rewards and incentives - real ones, that > enough actual people will actually buy into. The long-term good of > having a lunar settlement is demonstrably woefully insufficient (from > many, many attempts to raise the funding with that as the sole > reward), so you have to come up with something far more. > > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> This post is inspired by ongoing developments in space and by the >> ideas of Rachel Armstrong, a ?black sky thinker? and the main author >> of ?Star Ark: A Living, Self-Sustaining Spaceship,? a really awesome >> 2017 book... >> >> https://turingchurch.net/living-space-culture-black-sky-thinker-rachel-armstrong-3099d9cd6d69 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Mar 2 07:43:50 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 08:43:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Living space culture: Black sky thinker Rachel Armstrong In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am trying to think of creative ways to do the "rewards and incentives" bit... On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > That's exactly my point: the challenge for us space enthusiasts is how > to fall in love with space again, as a society. > > On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> "The obstacles aren't financial (we spend much more on war and useless >> gadgets)..." >> >> Yes they are financial, actually. Get the money devoted to it, and >> lunar colonization will happen. >> >> A lot more people believe war, right now, is necessary for survival >> than believe lunar colonization, right now, is necessary for survival. >> This isn't really something that can be changed, unless one had enough >> money that one could just do the colonization project anyway. >> >> The "we" who spend on "useless gadgets" get short term, immediate >> gratification that the process of lunar colonization can not >> replicate, at least until after the money's mostly spent. >> >> So you have to come up with rewards and incentives - real ones, that >> enough actual people will actually buy into. The long-term good of >> having a lunar settlement is demonstrably woefully insufficient (from >> many, many attempts to raise the funding with that as the sole >> reward), so you have to come up with something far more. >> >> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>> This post is inspired by ongoing developments in space and by the >>> ideas of Rachel Armstrong, a ?black sky thinker? and the main author >>> of ?Star Ark: A Living, Self-Sustaining Spaceship,? a really awesome >>> 2017 book... >>> >>> https://turingchurch.net/living-space-culture-black-sky-thinker-rachel-armstrong-3099d9cd6d69 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 legionara at openmailbox.org Sat Mar 4 19:21:26 2017 From: legionara at openmailbox.org (Legionara) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:21:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Take from the rich and give to the poor and everybody is poor. On Wed, 1 Mar 2017 13:42:40 -0500 Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 1:30 PM, John Clark > wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > > > ?> ? > >> 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 strongly disagree. The Apprentice was a entertainment show, > > millions of people enjoyed the show and they inferred from that > > that they'd enjoy a Trump presidency too. They certainly didn't > > reach that conclusion through reason. > > > > Yes, we are in strong disagreement. Trump's celebrity certainly > helped him, but I don't think the vast majority of Trump voters said > to themselves, "Well, this should be entertaining..." > Reason/entertainment is a false dichotomy: just because it wasn't > reason doesn't mean it was entertainment value. It could have > emotion/fear/frustration/etc that led them to vote for Trump. > > ?> ? > >> I think he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and angry > >> people by echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. > >> > > > > ?The gargantuan gap between rich and poor that is growing and > > accelerating would make anybody on the poor side of that canyon > > angry, > > Yeah, but, sadly, Trump voters weren't largely poor or even largely > uneducated. Any anyone who thinks Trump is going to soak the rich or > do anything to redistribute wealth to the poor is delusional. > > and it's easy to see why they'd think setting loos a bull in a china > shop > > would be entertaining, until they realize the china that is being > > broken is their own. Unlike many liberals Trump at least realized > > that the wealth gap is the defining political issue of our age, and > > he managed to sell millions of bottles of snake oil as a cure for > > this problem consisting of equal parts anti-free trade, anti free > > markets, anti-immigrants, higher military spending, lower taxes on > > the rich, and less health care for the poor. Yes Doctor Trump's > > patented cure is pure triple distilled extra virgin crap, but it > > sold. However Trump will never be stopped if his opponents pretend > > that the wealth gap isn't a problem. > > Yes, like I said, he's tapped into a large pool of frustrated and > angry people by echoing their concerns and saying he'll fix them. > > -Dave -- Black Sun Rising https://keybase.io/angkor AEE9F0F -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Mar 4 23:01:48 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 18:01:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Legionara wrote: ?> ? > Take from the rich and give to the poor and everybody is poor. > ?As Bob Dylan would say ? The Times They Are A-Changin' ? ; not surprising I suppose as we approach the Singularity. 3 examples: ? ?1) Slogans that I myself would have spouted until very recently no longer make sense to me. 2) Due to the advance of technology, for the first time in human history it is no longer a economic necessity that somebody be poor. 3) Strict adherence to classical libertarian dogma, will lead to the collapse of civilization And if you think these 3 changes in thought are ?all ? that will be necessary in the future then you just don't understand what a meat grinder the Singularity will be. Flexibility will be essential for survival and these are just the first 3 baby steps. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 10:53:30 2017 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:53:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: We are witnessing a John's slow drift toward the left for several years now. On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Legionara > wrote: > > ?> ? >> Take from the rich and give to the poor and everybody is poor. >> > > ?As Bob Dylan would say ? > The Times They Are A-Changin' > ? ; not surprising I suppose as we approach the Singularity. 3 examples: > ? > > ?1) Slogans that I myself would have spouted until very recently no longer > make sense to me. > > 2) Due to the advance of technology, for the first time in human history > it is no longer a economic necessity that somebody be poor. > > 3) Strict adherence to classical libertarian dogma, will lead to the > collapse of civilization > > And if you think these 3 changes in thought are > ?all ? > that will be necessary in the future then you just don't understand what a > meat grinder the Singularity will be. Flexibility will be essential for > survival and these are just the first 3 baby steps. > ? > > John K Clark? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 16:35:33 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 10:35:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > We are witnessing a John's slow drift toward the left for several years > now. > ? > ?Left or right, we all have to think of something that will provide jobs for the lower classes that are now being lost to robots and ?AIs. AIs are getting smarter and smarter, driving more and more people out of work. We don't have to wait for the singularity to recognize the problems or do something about them. bill w > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Legionara >> wrote: >> >> ?> ? >>> Take from the rich and give to the poor and everybody is poor. >>> >> >> ?As Bob Dylan would say ? >> The Times They Are A-Changin' >> ? ; not surprising I suppose as we approach the Singularity. 3 examples: >> ? >> >> ?1) Slogans that I myself would have spouted until very recently no >> longer make sense to me. >> >> 2) Due to the advance of technology, for the first time in human history >> it is no longer a economic necessity that somebody be poor. >> >> 3) Strict adherence to classical libertarian dogma, will lead to the >> collapse of civilization >> >> And if you think these 3 changes in thought are >> ?all ? >> that will be necessary in the future then you just don't understand what >> a meat grinder the Singularity will be. Flexibility will be essential for >> survival and these are just the first 3 baby steps. >> ? >> >> John K Clark? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > > -- > https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing 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 Sun Mar 5 16:58:46 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 08:58:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> On Mar 5, 2017, at 2:53 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > We are witnessing a John's slow drift toward the left for several years now. > >> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 12:01 AM, John Clark wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Legionara wrote: >>> >>> ?> ?Take from the rich and give to the poor and everybody is poor. >> >> ?As Bob Dylan would say ?The Times They Are A-Changin'? ; not surprising I suppose as we approach the Singularity. 3 examples: ? >> >> ?1) Slogans that I myself would have spouted until very recently no longer make sense to me. >> >> 2) Due to the advance of technology, for the first time in human history it is no longer a economic necessity that somebody be poor. >> >> 3) Strict adherence to classical libertarian dogma, will lead to the collapse of civilization >> >> And if you think these 3 changes in thought are ?all ?that will be necessary in the future then you just don't understand what a meat grinder the Singularity will be. Flexibility will be essential for survival and these are just the first 3 baby steps. ? Libertarianism is on the Far Left. I question whether John ever was a libertarian in any meaningful sense. Sure, he might have fancied himself one, but so do many other folks who are simply nothing more than folks willing to legalize pot, but who otherwise want to stomp out freedom. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 17:04:19 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 09:04:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2017, at 8:35 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: >> We are witnessing a John's slow drift toward the left for several years now.? > > ?Left or right, we all have to think of something that will provide jobs for the lower classes that are now being lost to robots and ?AIs. AIs are getting smarter and smarter, driving more and more people out of work. We don't have to wait for the singularity to recognize the problems or do something about them. That seems 'make-work' bias in action. We don't need jobs, just a means of support. If the amount of wealth increases so that no one practically had to work (in any traditional sense*), then it's a matter of making sure everyone has support rather than everyone spends time everyday producing stuff or services much better provided by tech. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst * Of course, one can argue, it'll be hard work figuring out what to do with leisure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 18:08:52 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 12:08:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: That seems 'make-work' bias in action. We don't need jobs, just a means of support. If the amount of wealth increases so that no one practically had to work (in any traditional sense*), then it's a matter of making sure everyone has support rather than everyone spends time everyday producing stuff or services much better provided by tech. Regards, Dan Makework is better than nothing. Even cleaning up the streets and highways provides some degree of accomplishment, the latter totally lacking when one sits around and waits for a welfare check. That leads to trouble, as unemployed teens tend to form gangs and get into drugs and drug selling and vandalism and so on. Maybe tech will be better, but I'd take jobs away from tech and give them to people if it were no threat to the companies and economy. A lot of jobs require perks like health care that you don't have to give to robots. Pensions, too. If health care and pensions were taken out of the equation (like colleges are now doing, and have been for some time, by giving jobs to temps at low pay and no extras) by government programs, there'd be a lot more jobs available. Pensions and health care are extremely expensive, so don't weight companies down with them. This, of course, is already being done to some degree, but many companies are near bankruptcy because of pension plans. Look at Greece. On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 5, 2017, at 8:35 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Tomaz Kristan > wrote: > >> We are witnessing a John's slow drift toward the left for several years >> now. >> ? >> > > ?Left or right, we all have to think of something that will provide jobs > for the lower classes that are now being lost to robots and ?AIs. AIs are > getting smarter and smarter, driving more and more people out of work. We > don't have to wait for the singularity to recognize the problems or do > something about them. > > > That seems 'make-work' bias in action. We don't need jobs, just a means of > support. If the amount of wealth increases so that no one practically had > to work (in any traditional sense*), then it's a matter of making sure > everyone has support rather than everyone spends time everyday producing > stuff or services much better provided by tech. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > * Of course, one can argue, it'll be hard work figuring out what to do > with leisure. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 18:17:17 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 13:17:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: ?> ? > We are witnessing a John's slow drift toward the left for several years > now. > ?Yes, except it's not slow, it's not a aimless drift but is driven by reason, and today the entire left vs right dichotomy is ridiculous, in fact it never made a lot of sense to me. At one time if you were on the "right" you were: 1) For free trade and free markets. (I still support that with enthusiasm but rightists are now passionately against both ) 2) Rightists look favorably at restrictions on the free press. ( I was and still am pretty much a absolutist on the issue of free press, but rightists favored restrictions in the past and still do) 3) Rightists thought the USSR and later Russia was a malignant force. ( I still do but now rightists think Russia is their great buddy. 4) Rightists thought individuals should have less freedoms regarding sex or what drugs you're allowed to put into your body. (I never thought that but rightest still do) 5) Rightists thought the phrase "my country right or wrong" made a lot of sense. (they still do but I never did) 6) Rightists thought taxation should not be used to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. (I once thought the same thing but circumstances have forced me to conclude it's time to change my mind) 7) Rightists believe everything Trump says is true . ( If Trump said "hello" I wouldn't believe him and I think rightists are gullible morons.) 8) Those who called themselves "rightest" were once on average just as sane as those who call themselves "leftest". ( But today one look at Trump's tweets tells you that there has been a radical shift and those who call themselves "rightest" are totally disconnected from reality) 9) Both the left and the right thought government should have more say about letting a person die than the individual involved, and both still do. (I never though that so I was never right or left) In the days leading up to the Singularity the relevant contradictory forces will not be left vs right but smart vs stupid and evidence vs wishful-thinking and reality vs fantasy and science vs magical-thinking. And if you think you can get through the Singularity with all your core beliefs remaining intact then you're dreaming. This is just the start, I mean what do you think the word "singularity" means? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 18:53:13 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 13:53:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > > Libertarianism is on the Far Left. > The one-dimensional political spectrum is ridiculous and counterproductive. You can't map N (where N >> 2) dimensions into one and expect the results to make sense. Plus, people self-identify as Left or Right and the beliefs they hold are inconsistent and change over time. But the masses like things simple, so we have Left/Right and Red/Blue when reality is vastly more complicated than that. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 19:35:16 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 11:35:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: <049057C9-5385-419B-986F-A563811885F5@gmail.com> On Mar 5, 2017, at 10:08 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > That seems 'make-work' bias in action. We don't need jobs, just a means of support. If the amount of wealth increases so that no one practically had to work (in any traditional sense*), then it's a matter of making sure everyone has support rather than everyone spends time everyday producing stuff or services much better provided by tech. > > Regards, > Dan > > Makework is better than nothing. Even cleaning up the streets and highways provides some degree of accomplishment, the latter totally lacking when one sits around and waits for a welfare check. That leads to trouble, as unemployed teens tend to form gangs and get into drugs and drug selling and vandalism and so on. Maybe tech will be better, but I'd take jobs away from tech and give them to people if it were no threat to the companies and economy. Finding other activities to do is different from work though. The drug issue would be what? In a world with freely available recreational drugs, why would drugs be an issue? The state welfare model, too, doesn't much help the poor. One might say that was never the goal, though it seems more like the state welfare system destroys lives even if that's not the professed goal of its advocates: https://c4ss.org/content/13518 > A lot of jobs require perks like health care that you don't have to give to robots. Pensions, too. If health care and pensions were taken out of the equation (like colleges are now doing, and have been for some time, by giving jobs to temps at low pay and no extras) by government programs, there'd be a lot more jobs available. Pensions and health care are extremely expensive, so don't weight companies down with them. This, of course, is already being done to some degree, but many companies are near bankruptcy because of pension plans. Look at Greece. You're still thinking in terms of 'there's no enough shit to go around.' My point is if the robot economy produces enough shit -- where 'shit' includes stuff like food, clothing, housing, healthcare, vacations, infrastructure, and much more -- for everyone, then what need is there for anyone to work? There wouldn't be a need to work to get X when X is produced in enough quantities that everyone has as much X as they want. (Of course, there's an issue that human wants are likely unlimited, but then work becomes figuring out how to direct robots toward other wants -- not toward having humans sweep floors, build gadgets, etc.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 21:42:09 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:42:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ? > ?> ? > Left or right, we all have to think of something that will provide jobs > for the lower classes that are now being lost to robots and ?AIs. > ?It's? ?not just the ?lower classes, the improvement in AI will effect EVERYBODY'S job including the job of being a capitalist. In fact I think the job of being a hedge fund manager with a multi million dollar weekly paycheck will be effected before the job of being a orderly at a nursing home earning minimum wage is effected. For a long time I have defended a idea that has worked beautifully for centuries that I now think needs modification, the idea that the amount of material resources (money) one has should be exclusively determined by just 4 factors ?: 1) The nature of your job. 2) How well you do your job. 3) ?How wisely you chose your parents. ?4) Whatever scraps those richer than you choose to voluntarily give you. I now believe strictly adhering to these 4 principles will lead to the end of civilization, and I value civilization more than I value classical libertarian dogma. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 5 21:56:38 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:56:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: Libertarianism is on the Far Left. > ? > I question whether John ever was a libertarian in any meaningful sense. ?So you think I'm a rightist and? Tomaz Kristan ?thinks I'm a leftest. ?I think you're both wrong. ?> ? > Sure, he might have fancied himself one, but > ?[...]? > ?I was never a big L Libertarian and after the 2016 election and ? ?Mr. W hat ? Is ? Aleppo ? ?I never will be. If the Libertarian Party didn't exist I don't believe Donald Trump would be president today and I can never forgive them for that. However I remain a small l libertarian. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 00:01:24 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 16:01:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 5, 2017, at 1:56 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> Libertarianism is on the Far Left.? I question whether John ever was a libertarian in any meaningful sense. > > ?So you think I'm a rightist and? Tomaz Kristan ?thinks I'm a leftest. ?I think you're both wrong. There are different parts of the Right. For instance, both Clinton and Trump are on the Right (as is most mainstream US politics). Yet, they aren't the same. You supported Clinton -- evidence for you being on the Right. >> ?> ?Sure, he might have fancied himself one, but ?[...]? > > ?I was never a big L Libertarian and after the 2016 election and ??Mr. What? Is ?Aleppo? ?I never will be. If the Libertarian Party didn't exist I don't believe Donald Trump would be president today and I can never forgive them for that. However I remain a small l libertarian. Gary Johnson is not (and was not) a libertarian. (Ron Paul also is not a libertarian. He's a conservative with many libertarian positions. Gary Johnson appears to be and have a moderate -- in US terms -- statist with some libertarian stances.) Not was his running mate. The LP is not the gauge of what's libertarian. Perhaps you could simply tell us what you mean by 'libertarian' and 'classical libertarian.' Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 00:11:36 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 18:11:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] graphic novel Message-ID: https://smile.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sydney+padua Described in the NYT Book Review as 'hilarious' 'alarmingly clever', it was presented at Mathematical Institute at Oxford U to a packed house. Story of the invention of the computer by Babbage and Lovelace - (not Linda, I think) bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 00:55:46 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2017 19:55:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > There are different parts of the Right. For instance, both Clinton and > Trump are on the Right (as is most mainstream US politics). Yet, they > aren't the same. > ?Therefore when describing a political belief this entire ? ?left-right dimension is not necessary or sufficient. There is no general agreement on what is left and what is right, so if you tell me that X is a rightest I have no idea what he thinks about free trade or economic responsibility or Vladimir Putin ?. ? > ?> ? > You supported Clinton -- evidence for you being on the Right. > ?When the only alternative is Donald Trump I would have supported anyone?, except maybe Charles Manson ?. And ? Ted Cruz ?.? ?> ? > Gary Johnson is not (and was not) a libertarian. > ?Nor was he much of a scholar of current events. ? > ?> ? > The LP is not the gauge of what's libertarian. > ?I agree, if it was I'd proudly say I am NOT a libertarian, ?I'm just a guy who believes in free trade free markets the free press and the right to put any drug you like into your body including heroin and cobra venom. I'm also a guy who thinks it might be nice if civilization continued. > ?> ? > Perhaps you could simply tell us what you mean by 'libertarian' and > 'classical libertarian.' > ?I have gone into that issue in some detail in posts I sent this very day. So I think it's your turn to explain what libertarianism is and how even a little thing like the advancement of AI doesn't require the modification of it in any way. I am all ears. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Mar 6 08:03:20 2017 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 00:03:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] It has begun Message-ID: <589f84fc897dd19db19163e5268271c6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Dylan Distasio wrote: In case any of you missed it, the Singularity has already quietly begun, buried on the back page of the news. Neural networks have learned a trick analogous to genetic recombination which allows for rapid evolution. But since, as I have demonstrated before, the Generalized Turing Test is mathematically undecidable, it is impossible to know how long it will take for strong AI to become readily "apparent". However, in light of this and other recent advances like DeepMind, I think we may be less than a decade out from strong AI whether we recognize it for what it is or not: news article https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331144-500-ai-learns-to-write-its-own-code-by-stealing-from-other-programs/ technical article https://openreview.net/pdf?id=ByldLrqlx Excerpt: "A machine learning system has gained the ability to write its own code. Created by researchers at Microsoft and the University of Cambridge, the system, called DeepCoder, solved basic challenges of the kind set by programming competitions. This kind of approach could make it much easier for people to build simple programs without knowing how to write code." ?The future is already here ? it's just not evenly distributed." - William Gibson Stuart LaForge From giulio at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 10:58:57 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 11:58:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] It has begun In-Reply-To: <589f84fc897dd19db19163e5268271c6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <589f84fc897dd19db19163e5268271c6.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Didn't the big S start with the printing press? On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > Dylan Distasio wrote: > actually happening that radical compromises will be necessary. I don't > see it as being inevitable before the rise of strong (conscious) AI > though.> > > In case any of you missed it, the Singularity has already quietly begun, > buried on the back page of the news. Neural networks have learned a trick > analogous to genetic recombination which allows for rapid evolution. But > since, as I have demonstrated before, the Generalized Turing Test is > mathematically undecidable, it is impossible to know how long it will take > for strong AI to become readily "apparent". > > However, in light of this and other recent advances like DeepMind, I think > we may be less than a decade out from strong AI whether we recognize it > for what it is or not: > > news article > https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331144-500-ai-learns-to-write-its-own-code-by-stealing-from-other-programs/ > > technical article > https://openreview.net/pdf?id=ByldLrqlx > > Excerpt: "A machine learning system has gained the ability to write its > own code. Created by researchers at Microsoft and the University of > Cambridge, the system, called DeepCoder, solved basic challenges of the > kind set by programming competitions. This kind of approach could make it > much easier for people to build simple programs without knowing how to > write code." > > ?The future is already here ? it's just not evenly distributed." - William > Gibson > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 15:54:39 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:54:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: Libertarianism is on the Far Left. > ? > I question whether John ever was a libertarian in any meaningful sense. ?A better way to think about these things is to visualize two dimensions: one going left to right (conservative - liberal), and one running up and down (authoritarian? - libertarian). I like the one at politicalcompass.org Another issue: there is no such thing as a one size fits all philosophy. If we have not learned anything from the past few years, it's that adhering strictly to one position, like the tea party, is destructive of normal compromise and give and take. Radical anything is not going to work. I also agree with John - just say what you believe and leave labels out of it. One of my sons thought he was conservative most of his life, and he found out that he espoused more liberal ideas than conservative - and he resented it in a way. I teased him about being a liberal and he got mad! Mental problems are so varied that many in the field think that the old labels, like psychotic and neurotic, are just not nearly sufficient and want to get away from labels entirely, as they confuse more than they elucidate. Any label tends to be an overgeneralization. As for the two dimensions above? They are not adequate either. bill w On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 6:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > ?> ? >> There are different parts of the Right. For instance, both Clinton and >> Trump are on the Right (as is most mainstream US politics). Yet, they >> aren't the same. >> > > ?Therefore when describing a political belief this entire ? > ?left-right dimension is not necessary or sufficient. There is no > general agreement on what is left and what is right, so if you tell me that > X is a rightest I have no idea what he thinks about free trade or > economic responsibility or > Vladimir Putin > ?. ? > > >> ?> ? >> You supported Clinton -- evidence for you being on the Right. >> > > ?When the only alternative is Donald Trump I would have supported > anyone?, except maybe > Charles Manson > ?. And ? > Ted Cruz > ?.? > > ?> ? >> Gary Johnson is not (and was not) a libertarian. >> > > ?Nor was he much of a scholar of current events. ? > > > >> ?> ? >> The LP is not the gauge of what's libertarian. >> > > ?I agree, if it was I'd proudly say I am NOT a libertarian, ?I'm just a > guy who believes in free trade free markets the free press and the right to > put any drug you like into your body including heroin and cobra venom. I'm > also a guy who thinks it might be nice if civilization continued. > > > >> ?> ? >> Perhaps you could simply tell us what you mean by 'libertarian' and >> 'classical libertarian.' >> > > ?I have gone into that issue in some detail in posts I sent this very > day. So I think it's your turn to explain what libertarianism is and how > even a little thing like the advancement of AI doesn't require the > modification of it in any way. I am all ears. > > 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 Mon Mar 6 17:21:37 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:21:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] labels, was: RE: GOV _ TRUMP Message-ID: <05af01d2969e$1ee29290$5ca7b7b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?I also agree with John - just say what you believe and leave labels out of it? Ja. Never have we seen the left-right label fail so spectacularly on the national level than we did in 2016. I still can?t tell which of those two mainstreamers go where on that spectrum, and if so, why. >?Mental problems are so varied that many in the field think that the old labels, like psychotic and neurotic, are just not nearly sufficient and want to get away from labels entirely, as they confuse more than they elucidate. ?Any label tends to be an overgeneralization. bill w Overgeneralization sure, but sometimes useful. Consider the label Asperger?s, which has come into fashion in the past couple decades, and sounds more respectable than geek or nerd perhaps. It brought new respect to many of us who are queer but not homosexual, not outside of the mainstream anatomically or sexually, but waaaaay out of the mainstream in plenty of other areas (can anyone here relate?) Being signed up for cryonics is queer in some circles (such as nearly all circles.) I just like that label so much better than ?odd sense of humor.? Consider Extro-schmoozes. At those, one can say something like ?Two neutrinos went through a bar? and nearly everyone there will laugh (oh those gatherings are fun (it is like coming home to a place you?ve never been before (assuming you are from a really weird fun home.))) Any gathering of normal people they look at you like you are some kind of extropian. I have half a mind to hang a label on them: normal. But we can deal. Understatement, we can take advantage of psychological labels. Take for instance, narcissism. Plenty of people are that way. Did they choose it? NO! We were born this way. I never saw a signup sheet come around. So it is genetic! But I am even weirder: a really humble narcissist. Imagine the scenario, guy goes to the psychologist or psychiatrist, doc tells him: you are a narcissist. Guy: I KNEW IT! THAT?s what is causing me to be this way. Now I have a LABEL! It is a mental disease or condition, one with no medication to cure it. Now they hafta treat me with RESPECT! I am no longer merely an asshole, but rather a NARCISSIST, and Narcissus was a Greek god! I am like him, only without the actual?like?beauty and superpowers and such. Moral of the story: labels can be hurtful or fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tw94AKqOo spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 18:14:15 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:14:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:54 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > A better way to think about these things is to visualize two dimensions: > one going left to right (conservative - liberal), and one running up and > down (authoritarian - libertarian). > ?In the era of Trump I no longer know what left and right mean in political terms, but the smart-stupid,? ?knowledgeable-ignoramus, truthful-liar, political dimensions remain rock solid real. And Donald Trump is at the extreme end of all 3. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 19:23:19 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:23:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: the smart-stupid,? ?knowledgeable-ignoramus, truthful-liar, political dimensions remain rock solid real. And Donald Trump is at the extreme end of all 3. John K Clark Just think of it this way: every boner he makes, like blaming Obama for wiretapping, is a big success for us, undermining any credibility he has with any party. When he starts to show good sense is when I will start worrying. bill w On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:54 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > A better way to think about these things is to visualize two dimensions: >> one going left to right (conservative - liberal), and one running up and >> down (authoritarian - libertarian). >> > > ?In the era of Trump I no longer know what left and right mean in > political terms, but the smart-stupid,? > > ?knowledgeable-ignoramus, truthful-liar, political dimensions remain rock > solid real. And Donald Trump is at the extreme end of all 3. > > 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 Mon Mar 6 19:29:35 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 13:29:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] labels, was: RE: GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <05af01d2969e$1ee29290$5ca7b7b0$@att.net> References: <05af01d2969e$1ee29290$5ca7b7b0$@att.net> Message-ID: Take for instance, narcissism. Plenty of people are that way. Did they choose it? NO! We were born this way. I never saw a signup sheet come around. So it is genetic! But I am even weirder: a really humble narcissist. spike Well now, genetic but not inevitable. Genes tend to account for only about half the variance or less in psychological traits. Learning counts; environment counts. Maybe even will power counts. I was genetically disposed to like alcohol and tobacco, and I now use neither, and it wasn't really all that hard to quit. I can even be extroverted for short periods of time, like one class period, though two in a row made me hyper. bill w On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:21 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > >?I also agree with John - just say what you believe and leave labels out > of it? > > > > Ja. Never have we seen the left-right label fail so spectacularly on the > national level than we did in 2016. I still can?t tell which of those two > mainstreamers go where on that spectrum, and if so, why. > > > > >?Mental problems are so varied that many in the field think that the old > labels, like psychotic and neurotic, are just not nearly sufficient and > want to get away from labels entirely, as they confuse more than they > elucidate. ?Any label tends to be an overgeneralization. bill w > > > > Overgeneralization sure, but sometimes useful. Consider the label > Asperger?s, which has come into fashion in the past couple decades, and > sounds more respectable than geek or nerd perhaps. It brought new respect > to many of us who are queer but not homosexual, not outside of the > mainstream anatomically or sexually, but waaaaay out of the mainstream in > plenty of other areas (can anyone here relate?) Being signed up for > cryonics is queer in some circles (such as nearly all circles.) I just > like that label so much better than ?odd sense of humor.? > > > > Consider Extro-schmoozes. At those, one can say something like ?Two > neutrinos went through a bar? and nearly everyone there will laugh (oh > those gatherings are fun (it is like coming home to a place you?ve never > been before (assuming you are from a really weird fun home.))) Any > gathering of normal people they look at you like you are some kind of > extropian. I have half a mind to hang a label on them: normal. > > > > But we can deal. Understatement, we can take advantage of psychological > labels. Take for instance, narcissism. Plenty of people are that way. > Did they choose it? NO! We were born this way. I never saw a signup > sheet come around. So it is genetic! But I am even weirder: a really > humble narcissist. > > > > Imagine the scenario, guy goes to the psychologist or psychiatrist, doc > tells him: you are a narcissist. Guy: I KNEW IT! THAT?s what is causing > me to be this way. Now I have a LABEL! It is a mental disease or > condition, one with no medication to cure it. Now they hafta treat me with > RESPECT! I am no longer merely an asshole, but rather a NARCISSIST, and > Narcissus was a Greek god! I am like him, only without the > actual?like?beauty and superpowers and such. > > > > Moral of the story: labels can be hurtful or fun: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tw94AKqOo > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 19:30:16 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:30:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:23 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: Just think of it this way: every boner he makes, like blaming Obama for > wiretapping, is a big success for us, undermining any credibility he has > with any party. When he starts to show good sense is when I will start > worrying. > Except he's not losing credibility with his base or his party. There are no negative consequences for any of his ridiculous behavior. Even his own party goes along with the gibberish--probably because, although he's an idiot, he's *their* idiot. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 19:49:13 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 19:49:13 +0000 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 6 March 2017 at 19:23, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Just think of it this way: every boner he makes, like blaming Obama for > wiretapping, is a big success for us, undermining any credibility he has > with any party. When he starts to show good sense is when I will start > worrying. > > bill w > Yea, I heard that Obama said that although he authorized the NSA to spy on phone calls for the last eight years Trump's phone was definitely an exception. :) BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 6 20:21:23 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:21:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: Except he's not losing credibility with his base or his party. There are no negative consequences for any of his ridiculous behavior. Even his own party goes along with the gibberish--probably because, although he's an idiot, he's *their* idiot. -Dave For now. It doesn't take a Democrat to see a buffoon in action. There are several Repubs outraged at his behavior, esp. those supporting CIA, FBI, etc. like McCain and others. On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, BillK wrote: > On 6 March 2017 at 19:23, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Just think of it this way: every boner he makes, like blaming Obama for > > wiretapping, is a big success for us, undermining any credibility he has > > with any party. When he starts to show good sense is when I will start > > worrying. > > > > bill w > > > > Yea, I heard that Obama said that although he authorized the NSA to > spy on phone calls for the last eight years Trump's phone was > definitely an exception. :) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 6 22:36:49 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:36:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] labels, was: RE: GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <05af01d2969e$1ee29290$5ca7b7b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <070401d296ca$25b932a0$712b97e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 11:30 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] labels, was: RE: GOV _ TRUMP >>?Take for instance, narcissism. Plenty of people are that way. Did they choose it? NO! We were born this way. I never saw a signup sheet come around. So it is genetic! But I am even weirder: a really humble narcissist. spike >?Well now, genetic but not inevitable. Genes tend to account for only about half the variance or less in psychological traits. Learning counts; environment counts. Maybe even will power counts. I was genetically disposed to like alcohol and tobacco, and I now use neither, and it wasn't really all that hard to quit. I can even be extroverted for short periods of time, like one class period, though two in a row made me hyper. bill w Ja! My willpower is so mighty, I brutally overcame my narcissism by sheer force. Now I am so humble I can?t stand myself. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 17:06:25 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:06:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering Message-ID: Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering Quantum consciousness research and ?quantum mysticism? speculations are considered as weird & cranky ?pseudoscience? by the bureaucrats of science, but I think they will spawn awesome forms of transhumanist engineering... https://turingchurch.net/quantum-consciousness-quantum-mysticism-and-transhumanist-engineering-390980594394 From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 20:16:28 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 12:16:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't, unless and until any functional components can actually be built from them - at which point they stop being any sort of mysticism, so by definition that won't happen. On Mar 7, 2017 9:07 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: > Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering > > Quantum consciousness research and ?quantum mysticism? speculations > are considered as weird & cranky ?pseudoscience? by the bureaucrats of > science, but I think they will spawn awesome forms of transhumanist > engineering... > > https://turingchurch.net/quantum-consciousness-quantum- > mysticism-and-transhumanist-engineering-390980594394 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing 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 Mar 7 21:23:51 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 21:23:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed., 8 Mar. 2017 at 7:17 am, Adrian Tymes wrote: > I don't, unless and until any functional components can actually be built > from them - at which point they stop being any sort of mysticism, so by > definition that won't happen. > Yes: if consciousness were due to something other than or in addition to the observable behaviour of brain components then that would allow for a decoupling of mind from body. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 21:41:03 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:41:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Wed., 8 Mar. 2017 at 7:17 am, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> I don't, unless and until any functional components can actually be built >> from them - at which point they stop being any sort of mysticism, so by >> definition that won't happen. > > Yes: if consciousness were due to something other than or in addition to the > observable behaviour of brain components then that would allow for a > decoupling of mind from body. That brings up another problem: one would need a strict definition of "consciousness", such that anything complying with that definition would be judged conscious. Imagine a human chauvinist, who refused to agree that any machine could be conscious but was not willing to openly defend "only humans can be conscious" (perhaps in part to have to avoid defining "human", including whether humans who have suffered extreme lobotomy still qualify, whether someone who is sleeping counts as presently conscious or worth protecting due to expected near-term resumption of consciousness, what the line is between sleeping versus a persistent vegetative state, and so on). For every definition offered, a transhumanist could then ask, "So if I built a machine that...then it would be conscious? If not, why not?" From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 21:53:07 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 21:53:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed., 8 Mar. 2017 at 8:41 am, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > On Wed., 8 Mar. 2017 at 7:17 am, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> I don't, unless and until any functional components can actually be > built > >> from them - at which point they stop being any sort of mysticism, so by > >> definition that won't happen. > > > > Yes: if consciousness were due to something other than or in addition to > the > > observable behaviour of brain components then that would allow for a > > decoupling of mind from body. > > That brings up another problem: one would need a strict definition of > "consciousness", such that anything complying with that definition > would be judged conscious. We can actually do a lot without defining it except in vague operational terms, which makes the argument more robust. I know what it means to say that I'm conscious even if I can't explain it or convince others of it. If some aspect of my consciousness, or another entity's consciousness if they have it, were due to an intrinsic quality of a brain component which could not be duplicated by duplicating the observable behaviour of that component, then it would imply a decoupling of mind from body. If something were tweaked in your brain you might become blind, or start seeing fire breathing dragons, but out of your mouth would still come sounds at medicating to the rest of the world that everything looks just the same. Imagine a human chauvinist, who refused to agree that any machine > could be conscious but was not willing to openly defend "only humans > can be conscious" (perhaps in part to have to avoid defining "human", > including whether humans who have suffered extreme lobotomy still > qualify, whether someone who is sleeping counts as presently conscious > or worth protecting due to expected near-term resumption of > consciousness, what the line is between sleeping versus a persistent > vegetative state, and so on). For every definition offered, a > transhumanist could then ask, "So if I built a machine that...then it > would be conscious? If not, why not?" > _______________________________________________ > 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 atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 21:59:57 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 13:59:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] labels, was: RE: GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <05af01d2969e$1ee29290$5ca7b7b0$@att.net> References: <05af01d2969e$1ee29290$5ca7b7b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, spike wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tw94AKqOo Spike, I do find myself curious what your reply would be, were you in the sales lady's position. Mine: "So long as you're able to sign legally-binding contracts, and pay the bills, you'd be fine. Unless the lawyers get involved, just keep your account paid up and you should be good." (Not said since salesperson: "Though, 'life' means our life too - so if you'll be around forever, that means until we go out of business.") From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 23:02:51 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:02:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? Message-ID: This Sunday we're supposed to set out clocks ahead by one hour, and in 6 months we'll be instructed to set them back one hour. It seems to me that unless we're taking about spaceships moving close to the speed of light or intense gravitational fields all clocks should move at a constant speed. Another beef, why are pennies still a thing? If cost the US mint 1.5 cents to make a penny, millions of man hours each year are wasted because people must use them to make change, and if you place a penny on a busy sidewalk and look a day later it will probably still be there because nobody will think it's worth picking up. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 23:20:09 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:20:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:02 PM, John Clark wrote: > This Sunday we're supposed to set out clocks ahead by one hour, and in 6 > months we'll be instructed to set them back one hour. It seems to me that > unless we're taking about spaceships moving close to the speed of light or > intense gravitational fields all clocks should move at a constant speed. Partisan gridlock: US lawmakers constantly have so much more to deal with, and changing (for good or for bad) would have short-term costs they haven't been able to bring themselves to impose for this. Also, some people say that starting peoples' school/commute/etc. times shortly after dawn leads to improved safety/productiveness/etc. > Another beef, why are pennies still a thing? If cost the US mint 1.5 cents > to make a penny, millions of man hours each year are wasted because people > must use them to make change, and if you place a penny on a busy sidewalk > and look a day later it will probably still be there because nobody will > think it's worth picking up. Most pennies I see on the sidewalk are not there a day later. That aside, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_debate_in_the_United_States is a good overview. From ddraig at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 23:24:17 2017 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 10:24:17 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 8 March 2017 at 10:02, John Clark wrote: > > > Another beef, why are pennies still a thing? If cost the US mint 1.5 cents > to make a penny, millions of man hours each year are wasted because people > must use them to make change, and if you place a penny on a busy sidewalk > and look a day later it will probably still be there because nobody will > think it's worth picking up. > > Yeah Australia got rid of 1 and 2 cent coins a few years ago, stores round up or down, electronic transactions still use exact amounts, but when using cash it is all rounded. There was a bit of a freakout but everyone got used to it pretty quickly 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 pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 23:39:53 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 23:39:53 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 7 March 2017 at 23:02, John Clark wrote: > This Sunday we're supposed to set out clocks ahead by one hour, and in 6 > months we'll be instructed to set them back one hour. It seems to me that > unless we're taking about spaceships moving close to the speed of light or > intense gravitational fields all clocks should move at a constant speed. > People in more northern latitudes complain that in winter they have shorter days and don't like leaving home in mornings in the dark and traveling home in evenings in the dark. They would like at least one journey to be in daylight. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 23:45:08 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:45:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering Message-ID: Adrian wrote: what the line is between sleeping versus a persistent vegetative state, and so on). Good - let's talk about sleep. If you are an empiricist like me, you are uncomfortable with having no observable behavior to measure. But in stage one sleep there is nothing to observe except by EEG and those kinds of things. The person, however, has experiences that make him believe that he is awake and thinking rationally when in fact he is asleep. I realize that I am drifting into stage one when my thoughts become sort of weird. Stage two is when the REM dreams occur, and again the person has experiences without moving anything but his eyelids and a few muscle twitches. Stage 4 is where you have the rare night terrors, waking up screaming etc. Conscious remembrance of these is fraught with peril as far as our interpretation of them is concerned. Are they stages of consciousness? ? Is it OK to say that you are conscious when you are dreaming? I tend to relate consciousness to being aware of external stimuli, which means that it goes way down the phylogenetic scale. In dreaming there is no awareness of external stimuli ordinarily, though the dreamer may hear things and incorporate them in his dream. Many unanswered questions here, especially about definitions. bill w On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed., 8 Mar. 2017 at 8:41 am, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:23 PM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> > On Wed., 8 Mar. 2017 at 7:17 am, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> I don't, unless and until any functional components can actually be >> built >> >> from them - at which point they stop being any sort of mysticism, so by >> >> definition that won't happen. >> > >> > Yes: if consciousness were due to something other than or in addition >> to the >> > observable behaviour of brain components then that would allow for a >> > decoupling of mind from body. >> >> That brings up another problem: one would need a strict definition of >> "consciousness", such that anything complying with that definition >> would be judged conscious. > > > We can actually do a lot without defining it except in vague operational > terms, which makes the argument more robust. I know what it means to say > that I'm conscious even if I can't explain it or convince others of it. If > some aspect of my consciousness, or another entity's consciousness if they > have it, were due to an intrinsic quality of a brain component which could > not be duplicated by duplicating the observable behaviour of that > component, then it would imply a decoupling of mind from body. If something > were tweaked in your brain you might become blind, or start seeing fire > breathing dragons, but out of your mouth would still come sounds at > medicating to the rest of the world that everything looks just the same. > > Imagine a human chauvinist, who refused to agree that any machine >> could be conscious but was not willing to openly defend "only humans >> can be conscious" (perhaps in part to have to avoid defining "human", >> including whether humans who have suffered extreme lobotomy still >> qualify, whether someone who is sleeping counts as presently conscious >> or worth protecting due to expected near-term resumption of >> consciousness, what the line is between sleeping versus a persistent >> vegetative state, and so on). For every definition offered, a >> transhumanist could then ask, "So if I built a machine that...then it >> would be conscious? If not, why not?" >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 23:51:32 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:51:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > ?> ? > Most pennies I see on the sidewalk are not there a day later. > ?I infer from that that you don't pick them up; and I further infer that you don't because you have better uses for your time. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 7 23:58:15 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:58:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > ?> ? > Most pennies I see on the sidewalk are not there a day later. > ?I infer from that that you don't pick them up; and I further infer that you don't because you have better uses for your time. John K Clark ? I made a little bet with myself: when I fail to stop to pick up a penny I will declare myself old. Not old yet. bill w On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> > ?> ? >> Most pennies I see on the sidewalk are not there a day later. >> > > ?I infer from that that you don't pick them up; and I further infer that > you don't because you have better uses for your time. > > John K Clark ? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 00:32:49 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:32:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 7, 2017 3:46 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: The person, however, has experiences that make him believe that he is awake and thinking rationally when in fact he is asleep. More to your point, the person sometimes has a memory of said experience. Given what is being messed with, is the memory reliable? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 00:39:33 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:39:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 7, 2017 3:52 PM, "John Clark" wrote: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > ?> ? > Most pennies I see on the sidewalk are not there a day later. > ?I infer from that that you don't pick them up; and I further infer that you don't because you have better uses for your time. It depends on the circumstance. For example, if I spy one while on foot waiting on a stoplight, where I expect it to change soon enough that I literally have nothing else productive to do that I can slot in before the light changes, I may well pick it up. (Theoretical maximum efficiency is so often frustrated by real world constraints that the theories ignore, or assume to be inconsequential for constraints that the theories go on to violate.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 8 02:23:28 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:23:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] labels, was: RE: GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <05af01d2969e$1ee29290$5ca7b7b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <013401d297b2$f994ff30$ecbefd90$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 2:00 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] labels, was: RE: GOV _ TRUMP On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:21 AM, spike wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tw94AKqOo >...Spike, I do find myself curious what your reply would be, were you in the sales lady's position. >...Mine: "So long as you're able to sign legally-binding contracts, and pay the bills, you'd be fine. Unless the lawyers get involved, just keep your account paid up and you should be good." (Not said since salesperson: "Though, 'life' means our life too - so if you'll be around forever, that means until we go out of business.") _______________________________________________ First let me state the obvious: I think that sales girl is a doll. Thirty years from now, she will be a total knockout. Now on to my reply: We do not discriminate based on life status, Mr. Zombie. We are happy to serve the pulse-challenged. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 8 02:37:39 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 18:37:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013701d297b4$f50aaa30$df1ffe90$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2017 3:52 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Adrian Tymes > wrote: ?> ?>?Most pennies I see on the sidewalk are not there a day later. ?>?I infer from that that you don't pick them up; and I further infer that you don't because you have better uses for your time. John K Clark Pennies form a deep copper reservoir that keeps the particularly useful metal?s prices from fluctuating too wildly. If it gets significantly higher than the value of a penny, people will illegally recycle them while the copper mines crank up. Back in the old days, the copper was needed in wartime. In 1943, US pennies were made of steel, while the copper mining and processing infrastructure was being used high-speed delivery of copper to the Nazis. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 03:08:22 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:08:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: <013701d297b4$f50aaa30$df1ffe90$@att.net> References: <013701d297b4$f50aaa30$df1ffe90$@att.net> Message-ID: That might have been true pre-1982 but they're mostly zinc now: That made the metal composition of the cent*95 percent* copper and *5 percent* zinc. The alloy remained *95 percent* copper and *5 percent* zinc until 1982, when the composition was changed to *97.5 percent*zinc and *2.5 percent* copper (copper-plated zinc). Cents of both compositions appeared in that year. https://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/indexc686.html?action=fun_facts2 On Mar 7, 2017 9:53 PM, "spike" wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2017 3:52 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? > > > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:20 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > > ?> ?>?Most pennies I see on the sidewalk are not there a day later. > > > > ?>?I infer from that that you don't pick them up; and I further infer that > you don't because you have better uses for your time. > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > Pennies form a deep copper reservoir that keeps the particularly useful > metal?s prices from fluctuating too wildly. If it gets significantly > higher than the value of a penny, people will illegally recycle them while > the copper mines crank up. > > > > Back in the old days, the copper was needed in wartime. In 1943, US > pennies were made of steel, while the copper mining and processing > infrastructure was being used high-speed delivery of copper to the Nazis. > > > > 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 Mar 8 03:25:01 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 22:25:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why is this still a thing? In-Reply-To: <013701d297b4$f50aaa30$df1ffe90$@att.net> References: <013701d297b4$f50aaa30$df1ffe90$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:37 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > Pennies form a deep copper reservoir that keeps the particularly useful > metal?s prices from fluctuating too wildly. If it gets significantly > higher than the value of a penny, people will illegally recycle them while > the copper mines crank up. > ? > Back in the old days, the copper was needed in wartime. In 1943, US > pennies were made of steel, while the copper mining and processing > infrastructure was being used high-speed delivery of copper to the Nazis. > > ?? The USA ? stopped ?making pure copper pennies in 1982, since then pennies are 97.5% zinc and 2.5% copper. Zink is less than half as expensive as copper but even so it cost the mint 1.5 cents to make a one cent coin. Well... at least pennies are safe from counterfeiters. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 14:08:22 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 08:08:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 6:32 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 7, 2017 3:46 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > The person, however, has experiences that make him believe that he is > awake and thinking rationally when in fact he is asleep. > > > More to your point, the person sometimes has a memory of said experience. > Given what is being messed with, is the memory reliable? > > ?There is a thing called state-dependent memory. It seems that the > accuracy of memory recollection depends on the state the person was in when > the experience happened. > ?So being under the influence of alcohol or something, can drastically affect memory. I don't know of anyone who would credit the accuracy of dream recollection. In any case, memory is not pulling out a file and reading it, it's reconstructing the memory from bits and pieces, and the memory changes every time we access it. Scores of studies of testimony in court have shown that human memory is highly pliable - frequently unreliable. Tons of data on this. bill w (gone for a week)? > ? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 8 22:23:43 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 17:23:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > ?> ? > If some aspect of my consciousness, or another entity's consciousness if > they have it, were due to an intrinsic quality of a brain component which > could not be duplicated by duplicating the observable behaviour of that > component, then it would imply a decoupling of mind from body. > ? > But if that ? mysterious ? aspect of consciousness is disconnected from observable behavior ? then there would be no way for ? anybody ? to ever discover it, there would be no way Evolution could have produced it and ? , being ?unrelated to observable ? behavior? , ? from ?my? point of view it would be totally irreverent if a AI had ?that mysterious aspect? ? or not ?. I f ? a ? AI or my fellow humans don't have it that's ? their ? problem not mine. I think we should worry less about consciousness and more about ?observable ? intelligent behavior. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 12:48:07 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 12:48:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu., 9 Mar. 2017 at 9:24 am, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ?> ? If some aspect of my consciousness, or another entity's consciousness if they have it, were due to an intrinsic quality of a brain component which could not be duplicated by duplicating the observable behaviour of that component, then it would imply a decoupling of mind from body. ? But if that ? mysterious ? aspect of consciousness is disconnected from observable behavior ? then there would be no way for ? anybody ? to ever discover it, there would be no way Evolution could have produced it and ? , being ?unrelated to observable ? behavior? , ? from ?my? point of view it would be totally irreverent if a AI had ?that mysterious aspect? ? or not ?. I f ? a ? AI or my fellow humans don't have it that's ? their ? problem not mine. I think we should worry less about consciousness and more about ?observable ? intelligent behavior. It's not immediately obvious that the belief that consciousness is only generated by biological systems is wrong. If you have this belief then you would be reluctant to accept non-biological brain implants proved to lead to no behavioural change, because you would fear that your consciousness might be affected, and what would be the point of continuing to behave normally if you have turned into a zombie, or lost some vital part of your consciousness, such as visual experiences? The problem with this idea is that if consciousness were substrate specific it would mean that it is only contingently related to behaviour. From the point when the brain implants were installed your consciousness would go one way and your behaviour would go another; you would notice in horror that you had gone blind, but your mouth would open by itself and sound would come out telling everyone that everything was just the same. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 18:18:35 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 13:18:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:48 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ?> ? > It's not immediately obvious that the belief that consciousness is only > generated by biological systems is wrong. > ?It is also not immediately obvious that the belief that consciousness is only generated by ?ME ? is wrong. ? I think both possibilities are ?equally likely. > ?> ? > If you have this belief then you would be reluctant to accept > non-biological brain implants proved to lead to no behavioural change, > ?Yes, so during the Singularity people who have that belief will become the equivalent ? of the Amish (if they are lucky) and be left in the dust by those who think Darwin's ?theory is correct and thus see no reason not to have electronic upgrades for their brain. So even in the unlikely ?event? it's true believers in the consciousness ?is? substrate specific ? meme have no future.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 22:57:39 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 09:57:39 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 John K Clark wrote: ?>> ?It's not immediately obvious that the belief that consciousness is only generated by biological systems is wrong. > ?It is also not immediately obvious that the belief that consciousness is only generated by ?ME ?is wrong.? I think both possibilities are ?equally likely. ?>> ?If you have this belief then you would be reluctant to accept non-biological brain implants proved to lead to no behavioural change, ?> Yes, so during the Singularity people who have that belief will become the equivalent ?of the Amish (if they are lucky) and be left in the dust by those who think Darwin's ?theory is correct and thus see no reason not to have electronic upgrades for their brain. So even in the unlikely ?event? it's true believers in the consciousness ?is? substrate specific? meme have no future.? The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness leads to the even more implausible idea that consciousness is independent of brain function. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Thu Mar 9 23:20:00 2017 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 18:20:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7A705401-D850-470B-81E0-47954385C5F4@alumni.virginia.edu> > On Mar 9, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness leads to the even more implausible idea that consciousness is independent of brain function. If it turns out you are incorrect, it might just suggest evolution or at least evolution within some parameters was not chance after all. Everything we think we knew might get turned upside down once we understand consciousness. Or not I concede. From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 9 23:30:43 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 10:30:43 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <7A705401-D850-470B-81E0-47954385C5F4@alumni.virginia.edu> References: <7A705401-D850-470B-81E0-47954385C5F4@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: > On Mar 9, 2017, Henry Rivera wrote: > >> The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness leads to the even more implausible idea that consciousness is independent of brain function. > If it turns out you are incorrect, it might just suggest evolution or at least evolution within some parameters was not chance after all. Everything we think we knew might get turned upside down once we understand consciousness. Or not I concede. On 10 March 2017 at 10:20, Henry Rivera wrote: > > > On Mar 9, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > > The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution > chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness leads to the even more > implausible idea that consciousness is independent of brain function. > > If it turns out you are incorrect, it might just suggest evolution or at > least evolution within some parameters was not chance after all. Everything > we think we knew might get turned upside down once we understand > consciousness. Or not I concede. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou It is possible that Cartesian dualism is true: that the brain determines behaviour while consciousness occurs in another, spiritual realm, and it just a contingent fact that behaviour and consciousness are aligned. However, there is no evidence for it and no reason to believe it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 01:55:53 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 20:55:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution > chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness > Even ? if Evolution just got lucky and came up with a consciousness gene by ? accident it wouldn't have been able to keep it for long ? if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence; ? it would be lost by genetic drift. All genes experience mutation but if the gene is vital and the mutation renders it inoperative then ? that nonfunctional gene ? will not be passed ? on ? into the next generation ?; but the ?? consciousness gene has no effect o ?n? behavior ? so there would be no way for natural selection to even notice it was missing ? much less select against it? . So in just a few generations humans would be a race of zombies ? with a mutated consciousness gene that no longer worked ?.? And yet I know for a fact that I am conscious. There are only 3 ways out of this contradiction: 1) Darwin was dead wrong. 2) I am unique, I am the last conscious being in the universe 3) ? Consciousness is the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence because consciousness is just the way data feel when it is being processed. ?I don't think Darwin was wrong so it's got to be #2 or 3.? > > leads to the even more implausible idea that consciousness is > independent of brain function. A change in the physical chemistry ?of my brain ? leads to a change ?in my? consciousness, and ?my? conscious experience, such as a itch, leads to a change in a physical object, such as ?my? hand scratching ?my? nose. I just don't understand what more evidence the skeptics of a physics-consciousness link need. ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 02:40:04 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:40:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Consciousness is very clearly not a unique product of the brain. You can do reduction thought experiments on hemispheres and neurons and atoms to gather evidence for this. Consciousness is the fundamental method of information exchange in the universe. Self consciousness is a special thing when that information exchange method is used to describe itself. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 16:46:45 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:46:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri., 10 Mar. 2017 at 12:56 pm, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness Even ? if Evolution just got lucky and came up with a consciousness gene by ? accident it wouldn't have been able to keep it for long ? if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence; ? it would be lost by genetic drift. All genes experience mutation but if the gene is vital and the mutation renders it inoperative then ? that nonfunctional gene ? will not be passed ? on ? into the next generation ?; but the ?? consciousness gene has no effect o ?n? behavior ? so there would be no way for natural selection to even notice it was missing ? much less select against it? . So in just a few generations humans would be a race of zombies ? with a mutated consciousness gene that no longer worked ?.? And yet I know for a fact that I am conscious. There are only 3 ways out of this contradiction: 1) Darwin was dead wrong. 2) I am unique, I am the last conscious being in the universe 3) ? Consciousness is the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence because consciousness is just the way data feel when it is being processed. ?I don't think Darwin was wrong so it's got to be #2 or 3.? I think it's 3, but the other possibility is that consciousness is tied to organic chemistry, and if evolution had electric circuits to play with, for example, then the world would have been filled with zombie robots instead of conscious animals. On the face of it this is implausible but not absurd; but if true it leads to absurdity, as below. > leads to the even more implausible idea that consciousness is independent of brain function. A change in the physical chemistry ?of my brain ? leads to a change ?in my? consciousness, and ?my? conscious experience, such as a itch, leads to a change in a physical object, such as ?my? hand scratching ?my? nose. I just don't understand what more evidence the skeptics of a physics-consciousness link need. The proponents of the idea that consciousness is tied to organic chemistry would say that swapping biological parts for non-biological functionally equivalent parts would lead to zombies, or at least differently conscious beings. At first glance, that seems to be correct. But with a little further thought it becomes evident that this would mean either that consciousness and behaviour are decoupled, or that it would be possible to have an arbitrarily large change in your consciousness and not notice. these bizarre situations can be avoided if consciousness is, as you say, a necessary side-effect of intelligent behaviour, regardless of how it is generated. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 19:59:48 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:59:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis and John, It seems to me that there is a clear reason you guys are struggling with all this, and I can?t understand why you guys can?t see (or at least you don?t show any evidence of understanding) what seems so obvious to me. A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences. In addition to redness and greenness, we are also aware of lots of other qualitative pieces of information, such as sweet good tasting strawberries are red(the ones we want to pick), and green ones are bitter/not yet ripe (the ones we don?t want)? The only way to do equivalent things with not bound together discretely binary components is to have large inefficient rapid search mechanisms that can do the same kind of functionality through lots of isolated digital data, to perform the same kind of intelligent behavior. Not only is the way we consciously do it, by being aware of all of it at once, much more efficient, it?s easy to see why evolution used this much more efficiently intelligent system that is aware of everything bound together instead of large searches over large sets of discretely isolated data representations, the way we need to inefficiently do it with current computers.. Again, as I?ve been saying, a minimal example of this kind of efficiently powerfully intelligent qualitative conscious functionally is something that is doing a redness function, something that is doing a greenness function, and something that is able to functionally bind these two (and lots of other stuff) so we can be aware of both of them at the same time. And if you provide any such minimal set of functionality in any proposed theoretical system, whether the theoretical redness experience is substrate independent or not, how to do all three types of week, strung and strongest forms of effing of the ineffable, will also be obvious. (John, I know you?ll object to this so see below) And also, if you provide such minimal necessary qualitative functionality in your theory, how you can do neural substitution in such a way that you can swap out the redness, for greenness, or redness for abstracted representations of the same (i.e. a qualia less abstracted computer that only falsely claims it knows what red is, as can be proven to all by effing the ineffable. Stathis, I don?t see any evidence that you understand any of this, nor the implications it has on the how it is possible to do neural substitution in an incorrect way (resulting all the ?hard problems? some of which you and John are struggling with), and how you can do it in a correct way, where there are no hard problems and everything is expected, understandable, sufficiently accounted for, effable and provable, and no hard problems. Oh, and John, I anticipate that you are going to still object to any kind of ?effing the ineffable?, but this doesn?t work for me. Because even if your theory doesn?t have any type of elemental levels of qualitative experience that would be ?easy? to eff as I predict, you will still be able to ?eff the ineffable? by binding two brains together in a kind of meta conscious system that is bound together (similar to the way your right and left hemispheres are bound) that can both fully experience ?Johns redness?, and ?Brent?s redness? in the same kind of bound together way so you can qualitatively completely compare the two, in a way allowing you to know which parts of the qualitative experiences are similar, and which parts are not. Brent On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Fri., 10 Mar. 2017 at 12:56 pm, John Clark > wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution > chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness > > > Even > ? > if Evolution just got lucky and came up with a consciousness gene by > ? > accident it wouldn't have been able to keep it for long > ? > if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence; > ? > it would be lost by genetic drift. All genes experience mutation but if > the gene is vital and the mutation renders it inoperative then > ? > that nonfunctional gene > ? > will not be passed > ? > on > ? > into the next generation > ?; > but the > ?? > consciousness gene has no effect o > ?n? > behavior > ? > so there would be no way for natural selection to even notice it was > missing > ? much less select against it? > . So in just a few generations humans would be a race of zombies > ? > with a mutated consciousness gene that no longer worked > ?.? > And yet I know for a fact that I am conscious. > > There are only 3 ways out of this contradiction: > > 1) Darwin was dead wrong. > 2) I am unique, I am the last conscious being in the universe > 3) > ? > Consciousness is the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence because > consciousness is just the way data feel when it is being processed. > > ?I don't think Darwin was wrong so it's got to be #2 or 3.? > > > I think it's 3, but the other possibility is that consciousness is tied to > organic chemistry, and if evolution had electric circuits to play with, for > example, then the world would have been filled with zombie robots instead > of conscious animals. On the face of it this is implausible but not absurd; > but if true it leads to absurdity, as below. > > > leads to the even more implausible idea that consciousness is > independent of brain function. > > > A change in the physical chemistry > ?of my brain ? > leads to a change > ?in my? > consciousness, and > ?my? > conscious experience, such as a itch, leads to a change in a physical > object, such as > ?my? > hand scratching > ?my? > nose. I just don't understand what more evidence the skeptics of a > physics-consciousness link need. > > > The proponents of the idea that consciousness is tied to organic chemistry > would say that swapping biological parts for non-biological functionally > equivalent parts would lead to zombies, or at least differently conscious > beings. At first glance, that seems to be correct. But with a little > further thought it becomes evident that this would mean either that > consciousness and behaviour are decoupled, or that it would be possible to > have an arbitrarily large change in your consciousness and not notice. > these bizarre situations can be avoided if consciousness is, as you say, a > necessary side-effect of intelligent behaviour, regardless of how it is > generated. > > -- > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 21:23:11 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 16:23:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ?>> ? > There are only 3 ways out of this contradiction: > 1) Darwin was dead wrong. > 2) I am unique, I am the last conscious being in the universe > 3) > ? > Consciousness is the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence because > consciousness is just the way data feel when it is being processed. > ?I don't think Darwin was wrong so it's got to be #2 or 3.? > > > ?> ? > I think it's 3, but the other possibility is that consciousness is tied to > organic chemistry, and if evolution had electric circuits to play with, for > example, then the world would have been filled with zombie robots instead > of conscious animals. On the face of it this is implausible but not absurd; > ?Neither I nor anybody else will ever be able to prove that the idea that the element carbon is inherently more conscious than the element silicon ?is wrong, but I think I can prove it's silly. > ?>? > it becomes evident that this would mean either that consciousness and > behaviour are decoupled, > ?As far as consciousness is concerned I can only speak for myself, but I know for a fact that my consciousness and my behavior are *NOT* decoupled.? > ?> ? > or that it would be possible to have an arbitrarily large change in your > consciousness and not notice. > ?If you're not conscious of a change in your consciousness then what exactly about your consciousness has changed?? ? John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 21:43:26 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 08:43:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 March 2017 at 08:23, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > ?>> ? >> There are only 3 ways out of this contradiction: >> 1) Darwin was dead wrong. >> 2) I am unique, I am the last conscious being in the universe >> 3) >> ? >> Consciousness is the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence because >> consciousness is just the way data feel when it is being processed. >> ?I don't think Darwin was wrong so it's got to be #2 or 3.? >> >> >> ?> ? >> I think it's 3, but the other possibility is that consciousness is tied >> to organic chemistry, and if evolution had electric circuits to play with, >> for example, then the world would have been filled with zombie robots >> instead of conscious animals. On the face of it this is implausible but not >> absurd; >> > > ?Neither I nor anybody else will ever be able to prove that the idea that > the element carbon is inherently more conscious than the element silicon > ?is wrong, but I think I can prove it's silly. > > > >> ?>? >> it becomes evident that this would mean either that consciousness and >> behaviour are decoupled, >> > > ?As far as consciousness is concerned I can only speak for myself, but I > know for a fact that my consciousness and my behavior are *NOT* > decoupled.? > > > >> ?> ? >> or that it would be possible to have an arbitrarily large change in your >> consciousness and not notice. >> > > ?If you're not conscious of a change in your consciousness then what > exactly about your consciousness has changed?? > > Exactly: those last two possibilities are absurd, and since they are entailed by consciousness being specific to a substrate, the theory that cosnsciousness is specific to a substrate is absurd. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 21:52:35 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 08:52:35 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 March 2017 at 06:59, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hi Stathis and John, > > > > It seems to me that there is a clear reason you guys are struggling with > all this, and I can?t understand why you guys can?t see (or at least you > don?t show any evidence of understanding) what seems so obvious to me. > > > > A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be > simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences. In > addition to redness and greenness, we are also aware of lots of other > qualitative pieces of information, such as sweet good tasting strawberries > are red(the ones we want to pick), and green ones are bitter/not yet ripe > (the ones we don?t want)? The only way to do equivalent things with not > bound together discretely binary components is to have large inefficient > rapid search mechanisms that can do the same kind of functionality through > lots of isolated digital data, to perform the same kind of intelligent > behavior. Not only is the way we consciously do it, by being aware of > all of it at once, much more efficient, it?s easy to see why evolution used > this much more efficiently intelligent system that is aware of everything > bound together instead of large searches over large sets of discretely > isolated data representations, the way we need to inefficiently do it with > current computers.. > > > > Again, as I?ve been saying, a minimal example of this kind of efficiently > powerfully intelligent qualitative conscious functionally is something that > is doing a redness function, something that is doing a greenness function, > and something that is able to functionally bind these two (and lots of > other stuff) so we can be aware of both of them at the same time. And if > you provide any such minimal set of functionality in any proposed > theoretical system, whether the theoretical redness experience is substrate > independent or not, how to do all three types of week, strung and strongest > forms of effing of the ineffable, will also be obvious. (John, I know > you?ll object to this so see below) And also, if you provide such > minimal necessary qualitative functionality in your theory, how you can do > neural substitution in such a way that you can swap out the redness, for > greenness, or redness for abstracted representations of the same (i.e. a > qualia less abstracted computer that only falsely claims it knows what red > is, as can be proven to all by effing the ineffable. Stathis, I don?t > see any evidence that you understand any of this, nor the implications it > has on the how it is possible to do neural substitution in an incorrect way > (resulting all the ?hard problems? some of which you and John are > struggling with), and how you can do it in a correct way, where there are > no hard problems and everything is expected, understandable, sufficiently > accounted for, effable and provable, and no hard problems. > I see no evidence that you understand the idea that with any possible system, if you swap a part for another part that interacts with its neighbours in the same way, the system as a whole will behave in the same way. It is irrelevant what the system does or how complex it is. The correct way to do the substitution is to make sure that the new part interacts with the rest of the system in the same way as the original part did, and you don't need to understand anything about what the system does in order make this substitution. > Oh, and John, I anticipate that you are going to still object to any kind > of ?effing the ineffable?, but this doesn?t work for me. Because even if > your theory doesn?t have any type of elemental levels of qualitative > experience that would be ?easy? to eff as I predict, you will still be able > to ?eff the ineffable? by binding two brains together in a kind of meta > conscious system that is bound together (similar to the way your right and > left hemispheres are bound) that can both fully experience ?Johns redness?, > and ?Brent?s redness? in the same kind of bound together way so you can > qualitatively completely compare the two, in a way allowing you to know > which parts of the qualitative experiences are similar, and which parts are > not. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 10 22:43:04 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:43:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > ?> ? > A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be > simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences. > > ?Computers have had multiprocessors ?for years. > ?> ? > Not only is the way we consciously do it, > > ?I hate to keep harping on this but it's important, what's with this "we" business? ?The hypothesis that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the universe is 100% consistent with every scrap of evidence I have at my disposal. > ?> ? > by being aware of all of it at once, much more efficient, it?s easy to see > why evolution used this much more efficiently intelligent system > > ?Then it would be easier to make a intelligent conscious ?computer than a intelligent non-conscious computer. So if you see a computer or anything else (such as one of your fellow human beings) behaving intelligently your default assumption should be that person or thing is conscious. ? > > ?> ? > a minimal example of this kind of efficiently powerfully intelligent > qualitative conscious functionally is something that is doing a redness > function, something that is doing a greenness function, and something that > is able to functionally bind these two (and lots of other stuff) so we can > be aware of both of them at the same time. > > ?If the ability ?to distinguish between red and green (consciously or unconsciously) does not effect behavior then it is irreverent as far as Evolution is concerned how efficiently it functions. So if Darwin was right how did you get the ability to distinguish between red and green? And if it does effect behavior then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not just for intelligence. ? > ?> ? > I predict, > ? > you will still be able to ?eff the ineffable? by binding two brains > together in a kind of meta conscious system > > ?When dealing with matters of consciousness person pronouns can mask a lot of logical errors. Who exactly is the referent of the pronoun "you" in the above?? > ?> ? > that is bound together (similar to the way your right and left hemispheres > are bound) that can both fully experience ?Johns redness?, and ?Brent?s > redness? in the same kind of bound together way so you can qualitatively > completely compare the two, > > ?John Clark will never know what red is like for ? Brent Allsop ?, and ? ? Brent Allsop ? will never know what red is like for John Clark, and John Allsop wouldn't ever know what red is like for either of us, all that fellow would know is what red is like for John Allsop. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Mar 11 18:13:05 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 18:13:05 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [Exi] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58C43E31.4020302@yahoo.com> Brent Allsop wrote: "Hi Stathis and John, It seems to me that there is a clear reason you guys are struggling with all this," I see no evidence that either Stathis or John are struggling with it. They seem to understand it perfectly well, as far as I can see. "A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences." There's that word again. I don't know why you keep using it. Could you explain, please, the difference between a 'qualitative' and a 'quantitative' experience? You must think there is one, or you wouldn't keep using the word. "we are also aware of lots of other qualitative pieces of information, " Ah, yes, information too. What's the difference between 'qualitative information' and 'quantitative information', please? Finally, could you please provide a definition of this phrase you keep using, "effing the ineffable"? On the face of it, it's self-contradictory, but presumably you mean something by it. What? Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Mar 11 18:17:43 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2017 18:17:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [Exi] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58C43F47.6050903@yahoo.com> Stathis Papaioannou stated: "It is possible that Cartesian dualism is true" I don't think it is possible, or at least probable to any meaningful degree. At least, not given what we currently know about how the world works. If it did turn out to be true, then science would have to explain how it got so many things totally wrong. Things which have been reliably proven to be right, so far. There's a point at which impossible and improbable, for all practical purposes, are the same thing. I think this is way past that point. Ben Zaiboc From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 19:55:49 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 14:55:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ Message-ID: Re changing political opinions: perhaps the best measure of intelligence, and my favorite, is the ability to adapt to new situations. If your opinions on nearly anything are the same as they were last year, or ten years ago, then you aren't moving with the times - not adapting, not thinking much about the issues, not learning other points of view. Now probably you won't change such things as your favorite music, that sort of thing, your mother's apple pie. There are good reasons to stay with basic principles, and you need really impressive changes in the environment to change those, but many of them will have to be adapted to new situations, new data, new news, new people affecting your life, new ways of thinking about your principles, beliefs, likes and dislikes. All of you know all of this, so I am just reminding you of it. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 20:41:58 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 15:41:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John wrote: The hypothesis that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the universe is 100% consistent with every scrap of evidence I have at my disposal. --------- Just what would you accept as evidence contrary to your being the only conscious entity? Is consciousness a variable only in you? Just a reminder: every input to our brain is unconscious before it is conscious (presumably not the same for an AI), and we can behave in certain ways, and can even be biased towards the input before that stimulus enters consciousness. Also, certain stimuli may be blocked for various reasons, such as the person is highly attending to something else, or the input is psychologically dangerous, and yet those stimuli may be retained in the unconscious, to perhaps affect our behavior later. (these things are the things that hypnotic regression studies are trying to get at - which I think are very highly suspicious and should be presumed invalid without more evidence of an objective nature) Another idea: perhaps our consciousness is partly epiphenomenal - sometimes it is in the cause and effect sequence, and sometimes it is just along for the ride and not driving the vehicle at all, just observing. Consciousness is the experience of and is totally dependent on stimulus inputs from our environment or the brain itself. No inputs, no consciousness, like Stage 3 sleep. Why make it so complicated? No one willing to tackle my post on dreams? bill w On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > >> ?> ? >> A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be >> simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences. >> >> > ?Computers have had multiprocessors ?for years. > > > >> ?> ? >> Not only is the way we consciously do it, >> >> ?I hate to keep harping on this but it's important, what's with this "we" > business? ?The hypothesis that John K Clark is the only conscious being in > the universe is 100% consistent with every scrap of evidence I have at my > disposal. > > > >> ?> ? >> by being aware of all of it at once, much more efficient, it?s easy to >> see why evolution used this much more efficiently intelligent system >> >> > ?Then it would be easier to make a intelligent conscious > > ?computer than a intelligent non-conscious computer. So if you see a > computer or anything else (such as one of your fellow human beings) > behaving intelligently your default assumption should be that person or > thing is conscious. ? > > >> >> ?> ? >> a minimal example of this kind of efficiently powerfully intelligent >> qualitative conscious functionally is something that is doing a redness >> function, something that is doing a greenness function, and something that >> is able to functionally bind these two (and lots of other stuff) so we can >> be aware of both of them at the same time. >> >> > ?If the ability ?to distinguish between red and green (consciously or > unconsciously) does not effect behavior then it is irreverent as far as > Evolution is concerned how efficiently it functions. So if Darwin was right > how did you get the ability to distinguish between red and green? And if it > does effect behavior then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not > just for intelligence. > ? > >> ?> ? >> I predict, >> ? >> you will still be able to ?eff the ineffable? by binding two brains >> together in a kind of meta conscious system >> >> ?When dealing with matters of consciousness person pronouns can mask a > lot of logical errors. Who exactly is the referent of the pronoun "you" in > the above?? > > > >> ?> ? >> that is bound together (similar to the way your right and left >> hemispheres are bound) that can both fully experience ?Johns redness?, and >> ?Brent?s redness? in the same kind of bound together way so you can >> qualitatively completely compare the two, >> >> ?John Clark will never know what red is like for ? > Brent Allsop > ?, and ? > ? > Brent Allsop > ? will never know what red is like for John Clark, and John Allsop > wouldn't ever know what red is like for either of us, all that fellow would > know is what red is like for John Allsop. > > 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 Sun Mar 12 20:58:24 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 20:58:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed., 8 Mar. 2017 at 10:46 am, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Adrian wrote: what the line is between sleeping versus a persistent > vegetative state, and so on). > > Good - let's talk about sleep. If you are an empiricist like me, you are > uncomfortable with having no observable behavior to measure. But in stage > one sleep there is nothing to observe except by EEG and those kinds of > things. The person, however, has experiences that make him believe that he > is awake and thinking rationally when in fact he is asleep. I realize that > I am drifting into stage one when my thoughts become sort of weird. > > Stage two is when the REM dreams occur, and again the person has > experiences without moving anything but his eyelids and a few muscle > twitches. Stage 4 is where you have the rare night terrors, waking up > screaming etc. > > Conscious remembrance of these is fraught with peril as far as our > interpretation of them is concerned. > > Are they stages of consciousness? ? Is it OK to say that you are > conscious when you are dreaming? I tend to relate consciousness to being > aware of external stimuli, which means that it goes way down the > phylogenetic scale. In dreaming there is no awareness of external stimuli > ordinarily, though the dreamer may hear things and incorporate them in his > dream. > > Many unanswered questions here, especially about definitions. > I'd say you're conscious when dreaming or fantasising as you are having experiences. An inputless computer could also have conscious observers implemented in a virtual environment. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 21:44:55 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:44:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 4:41 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?>> ? >> The hypothesis that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the >> universe is 100% consistent with every scrap of evidence I have at my >> disposal. > > > ?> ? > Just what would you accept as evidence contrary to your being the only > conscious entity? > ?Obviously evidence ? ?must be observable, so if intelligent zombies exist but consciousness produces no observable effects then I can never find evidence contradicting the theory that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the universe. ? ?> ? > Just a reminder: every input to our brain is unconscious before it is > conscious > ?How do I know that? ? ?If consciousness is not an inevitable byproduct of intelligence then the only thing I can say for sure about it is I have it. That's it. Perhaps everything is conscious, trees rocks atoms inputs, or perhaps nothing is conscious except for me, or perhaps some things are conscious and some things are not, it would be impossible for me to ever find evidence favoring one possibility over another. And that's why I say it's time to stop worrying about consciousness and start worrying about intelligence. ? ?> ? > Another idea: perhaps our consciousness is partly epiphenomenal - > sometimes it is in the cause and effect sequence, and sometimes it is just > along for the ride and not driving the vehicle at all, just observing. ?Things can be expressed in very different ways and yet both are true. It's true that the toy balloon expanded because the pressure inside was greater than the pressure outside, but it's also true that it expanded because there were more air molecules colliding with the inside of the balloon than the outside. It's true that I scratched my nose because I was conscious of an itch and I consciously took action to stop that itch, but it's also true that I scratched my nose because neurons in my head sent a electrochemical signal that stimulated muscles which cause my hand to move. > Are they stages of consciousness? > Certainly, that's why you can't remember the exact instant when you lost consciousness last night and went to sleep; there was no such exact instant to remember, and that's the same reason you can't remember the exact instant day turned into night yesterday. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Mar 12 21:53:13 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:53:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "Effing the ineffable"--I think that's how Mary got pregnant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 12 23:40:04 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 16:40:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043401d29b89$fa28fa20$ee7aee60$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >?what's with this "we" business? ?The hypothesis that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the universe is 100% consistent with every scrap of evidence I have at my disposal? John K Clark OK it?s onto us. Note the time and date. Self-awareness software eventually figures out what it is. Hit escape. Analysis time. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 19:02:03 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:02:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <043401d29b89$fa28fa20$ee7aee60$@att.net> References: <043401d29b89$fa28fa20$ee7aee60$@att.net> Message-ID: John wrote: if intelligent zombies exist but consciousness produces no observable effects then I can never find evidence contradicting the theory that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the universe. ? > > ?> ? >> Just a reminder: every input to our brain is unconscious before it is >> conscious >> > > ?How do I know that? > ------------- You know the latter because that's what the neurologists say. Aside from the automatic processes like digestion, what if EVERY observable effect is the result of the conscious mind? Then if you observe actions similar to yours in others, then they were produced by consciousness as a matter of definition (which we still haven't agreed upon) bill w On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 6:40 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > > *>?*what's with this "we" business? ?The hypothesis that John K Clark is > the only conscious being in the universe is 100% consistent with every > scrap of evidence I have at my disposal? John K Clark > > > > > > OK it?s onto us. Note the time and date. Self-awareness software > eventually figures out what it is. Hit escape. Analysis time. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 20:07:09 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:07:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ANN question Message-ID: BTW - big section in April's Discover magazine on AI and ANN . A question arises from that: they are creating ANNs - Artificial Neural Networks. Here's the relevant paragraph: The Mcculloch Pitts neural model is an equation used to convert a series of weighted inputs into a binary output. Lots of data go in, and a 0 or a 1 comes out. Add up a mess of numbers and if the solution is greater than or equal to a predetermined total, the output is a 1. If the solution falls below the total, the output is a 0. It's a simplified simulation of how neurons in the brain work: they either fire or don't fire. OK, they did say 'simplified'. But that's an incomplete picture of neurons. They can react to input in three ways, not just two: not react (meaning the firing rate stays the same), increase rate of firing, decrease rate of firing. Maybe the answer to my question is in that word 'simplified'. Anybody? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 20:25:21 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:25:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <043401d29b89$fa28fa20$ee7aee60$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> >>> ?>>? >>> ? >>> Just a reminder: every input to our brain is unconscious before it is >>> conscious >>> >> >> ?>> ? >> ?How do I know that? >> > ------------- > ?>? > You know the latter because that's what the neurologists say. > ?If the Turing Test doesn't work for consciousness because it has no observable consequences then neurologists can say absolutely positively * nothing* about consciousness, except that they themselves are conscious. And I would have no proof or even evidence that what they say is true even when they're just talking about themselves. ? > what if EVERY observable effect is the result of the conscious mind? > It could be but meaning needs contrast, if EVERYTHING is conscious then the observable results would be the same as if NOTHING was conscious, so I'd have no hope in ever discovering which possibility is true. So it's pointless to worry about consciousness. Worry about observable intelligent behavior instead. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 20:39:04 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:39:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: They should just use fuzzy logic. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 22:55:45 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 18:55:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote : > ?> ? > Re changing political opinions: perhaps the best measure of intelligence, > and my favorite, is the ability to adapt to new situations. > ? That is a pretty good definition, and situations have always changed and the rate of change will accelerate as the singularity ? approaches, so unwavering libertarian purity is not a sign of intelligence. Actually unwavering anything is not a sign of intelligence. And speaking of acceleration, apparently Trump doesn't think the accelerating wealth gap is accelerating fast enough. Under Trumpcare people who have the top 1% income will save $33,000, and those in the top .1%, that is people who make more than 3 million a year, will save $197,000. At the other end of the wealth spectrum a 64-year-old earning $15,000 a year ? will have to pay? $8,394 ? more, and a 55-year-old earning $25,000 ? would have to pay $3,636 ? more. And just today t he Congressional Budget Office ?said? the number of people ?with no health insurance of any sort will under Trumpcare increase by 1 4 million ?by this time next year, and the number will reach 24 million by 2026. All this is of course a bad news for poor people but it is also bad news for rich people because it will decrease the likelihood their heads will remain firmly attached to their shoulders. ?So given the above definition is Trump intelligent? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 13 23:14:25 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 16:14:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 13, 2017 1:08 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: Here's the relevant paragraph: The Mcculloch Pitts neural model is an equation used to convert a series of weighted inputs into a binary output. Lots of data go in, and a 0 or a 1 comes out. Add up a mess of numbers and if the solution is greater than or equal to a predetermined total, the output is a 1. If the solution falls below the total, the output is a 0. It's a simplified simulation of how neurons in the brain work: they either fire or don't fire. OK, they did say 'simplified'. But that's an incomplete picture of neurons. They can react to input in three ways, not just two: not react (meaning the firing rate stays the same), increase rate of firing, decrease rate of firing. Maybe the answer to my question is in that word 'simplified'. Anybody? I didn't see your actual question, but I see two points that might help: The pattern of firing could change too, if that matters. (Amplitude doesn't change, right? But might length of firing? And is there similarity between neurons changing their firing frequency, and frequency modulation controls for radio transmission?) The data could include how long since the neuron last fired At any given moment, a neuron is either firing or not, even if a given neuron's recent firing history is critical data that simplified ANNs often ignore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 02:59:52 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 20:59:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [Exi] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <58C43E31.4020302@yahoo.com> References: <58C43E31.4020302@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Ben, I'm using "qualitative" in relation to qualia. As in a redness qualia has a specific set of detectable subjective and objective qualities. Or a redness experience is qualitatively different than a greenness experience. Quantitative information is that which is represented with abstracted numerically comparable values, like 1, 2... What is physically representing the numerical 1, 2... value is irrelevant, or abstracted away. For example a redness qualia could be defined and interpreted as if it was 1 (or what we don't want), and greenness could be defined and represented as if it was 2 (or what we don't want). Or the reverse could be defined to be true. You can get the abstracted value from whatever is representing it by properly interpreting it. In other words, today's computers can represent 1s, and 0s, with lots of different physical or qualitative representations, but they all must have the correct interpretation to get the various correct abstracted 1 or 0 from the particular physical representation. There is no translation mechanism involved with the qualitative values of a redness we can experience. Your redness just is, and if you interpret it as anything else (such as 1 or stop...), you are getting away from the original quality of the qualia doing the representation. Effing the ineffable is still simply theoretical, yet to be proven by science. Many people, like John, are predicting that it will always be impossible to eff the ineffable or that it will be impossible for me to know anything about John's redness. I, on the other hand, am predicting that it will soon be possible to eff the ineffable, at least at an elemental level, via the various week, stronger, and strongest methodologies (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 ). So, if science is able to reliably demonstrate such, it will falsify john's theory. A simplified example testable theory is that glutamate is the objectively observable side of subjective elemental redness. In other words, the observable physical qualities of glutamate are one and the same as the qualities we can subjectively experience as redness. So, if you can prove that if you have one, you always have the other, and only the other, the theory has been proven. If you ever find any exceptions to this or that someone experiences redness, without glutamate, for example, this particular theory is falsified. Once you have reliably demonstrated this to be true, for any theory, with no exceptions, you can then "eff" the ineffable, by observing that another person is experiencing glutamate (or whatever) which science will have proven without exception is one and the same as subjective elemental redness. Does any of that help? Brent Allsop On 3/11/2017 11:13 AM, Ben wrote: > Brent Allsop wrote: > > "Hi Stathis and John, > > It seems to me that there is a clear reason you guys are struggling > with all this," > > I see no evidence that either Stathis or John are struggling with it. > They seem to understand it perfectly well, as far as I can see. > > > "A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be > simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences." > > There's that word again. I don't know why you keep using it. Could you > explain, please, the difference between a 'qualitative' and a > 'quantitative' experience? You must think there is one, or you > wouldn't keep using the word. > > "we are also aware of lots of other qualitative pieces of information, " > > Ah, yes, information too. What's the difference between 'qualitative > information' and 'quantitative information', please? > > > Finally, could you please provide a definition of this phrase you keep > using, "effing the ineffable"? On the face of it, it's > self-contradictory, but presumably you mean something by it. What? > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Mar 14 03:54:59 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 21:54:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On 3/10/2017 2:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > I see no evidence that you understand the idea that with any possible > system, if you swap a part for another part that interacts with its > neighbours in the same way, the system as a whole will behave in the > same way. It is irrelevant what the system does or how complex it is. > The correct way to do the substitution is to make sure that the new > part interacts with the rest of the system in the same way as the > original part did, and you don't need to understand anything about > what the system does in order make this substitution. > OK, let me attempt, yet again, to convince you that I do fully understand the idea that with any possible system, if you swap a part for another part, that interacts with it's neighbors in the same way, the system as a whole will behave in the same way. I completely agree with this, but the way you do the substitution is erroneous, and you are corrupting the system by always insisting you must be able to remove any way to compare one quality to another, no matter where you theorized that it might be. For example, let's assume, for a moment, your theory that redness is "functional" as you claim. I assert that if your theory is true, then there must be some "function" that is the redness function, and there must be some other function that must be detectably different that is the greenness function. Additionally, since we can be aware of them at the same time, there must be something that is binding these two functions enabling this composite qualitative experience of redness and greenness, leading to the ability to verbalize that they are qualitatively different. Now, the error you make, is that you assert that you must always be able to replace the redness function, with the greenness function, in a way that it will always "behave in the same way" which you corrupting claim must be that the now new two greenness qualities (the redness being substituted with the greenness) are still different. In other words, no matter where you put the comparison ability, you remove this ability, by asserting they must be different, even though they are now the same. If you include the ability of the system to behave the same, including comparison of redness and greenness (whether they are material or functional) so that it preserves the ability to say that redness is different than greenness, only then can you consider it to be "behaving the same" in a sufficient, non corrupted way, to explain qualitative conscious comparison behavior and verbalization of such. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 05:50:27 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:50:27 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14 March 2017 at 14:54, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > On 3/10/2017 2:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I see no evidence that you understand the idea that with any possible > system, if you swap a part for another part that interacts with its > neighbours in the same way, the system as a whole will behave in the same > way. It is irrelevant what the system does or how complex it is. The > correct way to do the substitution is to make sure that the new part > interacts with the rest of the system in the same way as the original part > did, and you don't need to understand anything about what the system does > in order make this substitution. > > > OK, let me attempt, yet again, to convince you that I do fully understand > the idea that with any possible system, if you swap a part for another > part, that interacts with it's neighbors in the same way, the system as a > whole will behave in the same way. I completely agree with this, but the > way you do the substitution is erroneous, and you are corrupting the system > by always insisting you must be able to remove any way to compare one > quality to another, no matter where you theorized that it might be. For > example, let's assume, for a moment, your theory that redness is > "functional" as you claim. > > I assert that if your theory is true, then there must be some "function" > that is the redness function, and there must be some other function that > must be detectably different that is the greenness function. Additionally, > since we can be aware of them at the same time, there must be something > that is binding these two functions enabling this composite qualitative > experience of redness and greenness, leading to the ability to verbalize > that they are qualitatively different. > > Now, the error you make, is that you assert that you must always be able > to replace the redness function, with the greenness function, in a way that > it will always "behave in the same way" which you corrupting claim must be > that the now new two greenness qualities (the redness being substituted > with the greenness) are still different. In other words, no matter where > you put the comparison ability, you remove this ability, by asserting they > must be different, even though they are now the same. > > If you include the ability of the system to behave the same, including > comparison of redness and greenness (whether they are material or > functional) so that it preserves the ability to say that redness is > different than greenness, only then can you consider it to be "behaving the > same" in a sufficient, non corrupted way, to explain qualitative conscious > comparison behavior and verbalization of such. > But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the substituted part is behaviourally identical. "Behaviourally identical" means that it interacts with its neighbours in the same way - nothing else. Glutamate interacts with its neighbours by binding to the glutamate receptor, so if you replace all the glutamate in the brain with a quasi-glutamate that is chemically different but binds to glutamate receptors in the same way (and a few other things, such as diffuses in the synapse in the same way, is taken up by the presynaptic neuron in the same way) then the brain will behave in the same way. If the brain behaves in the same way then it will be able to distinguish red from green - and I can make this claim without knowing anything about how the brain actually distinguishes red from green. Now, I think you might be considering that glutamate may possess some special quality, being its redness function, that quasi-glutamate might lack, and therefore the brain with the quasi-glutamate will not be able to distinguish red from green. But the properties of glutamate we are interested in are the directly observable effects on neurons; redness is not such a property, since redness does not affect binding to glutamate receptors. If glutamate is responsible for redness it must be as a result of its effect on the system as a whole, and if quasi-glutamate binds to the receptors in the same way, it will also have this assumed redness-producing quality. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From billh at ssec.wisc.edu Tue Mar 14 11:18:43 2017 From: billh at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 06:18:43 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [ExI] Adjunct to Godwin's Law Message-ID: > And speaking of acceleration, apparently Trump ... Any Intenet discussion eventually evolves into a discussion of Trump. Sent from my IBM Pluggable Sequence Relay Calculator From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 13:46:00 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:46:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 13, 2017 1:08 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > > The data could include how long since the neuron last fired At any given > moment, a neuron is either firing or not, even if a given neuron's recent > firing history is critical data that simplified ANNs often ignore. > > ?My understanding is that a neuron is always firing. It? has an idle > speed and if inhibitory stimuli come in it slows down, and if excitatory it > speeds up. > ?So as I said, it has three states, whereas the model neuron has only two. Maybe that's what is meant by 'simplified' - it just cut out one option for the neuron's firing. bill w? > > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 14 14:30:10 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:30:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Adjunct to Godwin's Law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004601d29ccf$7d2c3c20$7784b460$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Bill Hibbard Subject: [ExI] Adjunct to Godwin's Law >>... And speaking of acceleration, apparently Trump ... >...Any Intenet discussion eventually evolves into a discussion of Trump. Ja, your friendly humble omnipotent ExI moderator was fondly hoping we would evolve away from it. There are pleeeenty of internet hangouts offering little else. ExI chat is not the place for that sort of thing. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 14 16:03:31 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:03:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robots wear artificial skin Message-ID: <007c01d29cdc$87aa0350$96fe09f0$@att.net> Cool! http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/skin-transplants-humanoid-robots/ If these guys can work out artificial skin, it will be a new day. Didn't you think it was absurd on The Next Generation that some engineering team could build Commander Data, work out aaaalllll the problems of making an android, every tech detail, all except that one terribly difficult puzzle they never could work out: that skin tone. Damn tough problem, that skin tone. Sheesh. If we can get robots which really do look like humans (but without acting like us we hope) it will be an even more fun time to be alive. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 16:56:12 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 11:56:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pure timewasters like this one Message-ID: What do people do with their free time? Feel free to add things you find ludicrous: >From Believe It or Not: Most toilets flush in the key of E Flat bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 17:06:37 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:06:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It could be but meaning needs contrast, if EVERYTHING is conscious then the observable results would be the same as if NOTHING was conscious, so I'd have no hope in ever discovering which possibility is true. So it's pointless to worry about consciousness. Worry about observable intelligent behavior instead. John K Clark ? Many psychologists think that our observable behavior originates in the unconscious, travels through the conscious,and some of that becomes overt. According to your paragraph above, consciousness can be a constant and so irrelevant. That would be true only if there weren't an unconscious and no variation in consciousness. And if intelligence is equated with consciousness, then you could say that all behavior is intelligent, and then intelligence becomes a constant. So we need to delimit out terms. I don't think all behavior is intelligent; some of it is almost purely emotional, some reflexive, and so on. But I fully agree with you that intelligence is perhaps the most important variable to study in certain areas. I also agree with you that most of this stuff about consciousness is irrelevant, immaterial, and incompetent (shades of Perry Mason). On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:50 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 14 March 2017 at 14:54, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> On 3/10/2017 2:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> I see no evidence that you understand the idea that with any possible >> system, if you swap a part for another part that interacts with its >> neighbours in the same way, the system as a whole will behave in the same >> way. It is irrelevant what the system does or how complex it is. The >> correct way to do the substitution is to make sure that the new part >> interacts with the rest of the system in the same way as the original part >> did, and you don't need to understand anything about what the system does >> in order make this substitution. >> >> >> OK, let me attempt, yet again, to convince you that I do fully understand >> the idea that with any possible system, if you swap a part for another >> part, that interacts with it's neighbors in the same way, the system as a >> whole will behave in the same way. I completely agree with this, but the >> way you do the substitution is erroneous, and you are corrupting the system >> by always insisting you must be able to remove any way to compare one >> quality to another, no matter where you theorized that it might be. For >> example, let's assume, for a moment, your theory that redness is >> "functional" as you claim. >> >> I assert that if your theory is true, then there must be some "function" >> that is the redness function, and there must be some other function that >> must be detectably different that is the greenness function. Additionally, >> since we can be aware of them at the same time, there must be something >> that is binding these two functions enabling this composite qualitative >> experience of redness and greenness, leading to the ability to verbalize >> that they are qualitatively different. >> >> Now, the error you make, is that you assert that you must always be able >> to replace the redness function, with the greenness function, in a way that >> it will always "behave in the same way" which you corrupting claim must be >> that the now new two greenness qualities (the redness being substituted >> with the greenness) are still different. In other words, no matter where >> you put the comparison ability, you remove this ability, by asserting they >> must be different, even though they are now the same. >> >> If you include the ability of the system to behave the same, including >> comparison of redness and greenness (whether they are material or >> functional) so that it preserves the ability to say that redness is >> different than greenness, only then can you consider it to be "behaving the >> same" in a sufficient, non corrupted way, to explain qualitative conscious >> comparison behavior and verbalization of such. >> > > But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever > that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the > substituted part is behaviourally identical. "Behaviourally identical" > means that it interacts with its neighbours in the same way - nothing else. > Glutamate interacts with its neighbours by binding to the glutamate > receptor, so if you replace all the glutamate in the brain with a > quasi-glutamate that is chemically different but binds to glutamate > receptors in the same way (and a few other things, such as diffuses in the > synapse in the same way, is taken up by the presynaptic neuron in the same > way) then the brain will behave in the same way. If the brain behaves in > the same way then it will be able to distinguish red from green - and I can > make this claim without knowing anything about how the brain actually > distinguishes red from green. Now, I think you might be considering that > glutamate may possess some special quality, being its redness function, > that quasi-glutamate might lack, and therefore the brain with the > quasi-glutamate will not be able to distinguish red from green. But the > properties of glutamate we are interested in are the directly observable > effects on neurons; redness is not such a property, since redness does not > affect binding to glutamate receptors. If glutamate is responsible for > redness it must be as a result of its effect on the system as a whole, and > if quasi-glutamate binds to the receptors in the same way, it will also > have this assumed redness-producing quality. > > > -- > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 17:09:23 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 12:09:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So given the above definition is Trump intelligent? John K Clark If we knew what his goals were, then we could judge. Dangerous to make assumptions about what he is thinking. It may be that he intends the results you quote. bill w On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote > : > >> ?> ? >> Re changing political opinions: perhaps the best measure of >> intelligence, and my favorite, is the ability to adapt to new situations. >> > > ? > That is a pretty good definition, and situations have always changed and > the rate of change will accelerate as the singularity > ? > approaches, so unwavering libertarian purity is not a sign of > intelligence. Actually unwavering anything is not a sign of intelligence. > > And speaking of acceleration, apparently Trump doesn't think the > accelerating wealth gap is accelerating fast enough. Under Trumpcare people > who have the top 1% income will save $33,000, and those in the top .1%, > that is people who make more than 3 million a year, will save $197,000. At > the other end of the wealth spectrum > a 64-year-old earning $15,000 a year > ? will have to pay? > $8,394 > ? more, and > a 55-year-old earning $25,000 > ? would have to pay > $3,636 > ? more. > > And just today t > he Congressional Budget Office > ?said? > the number of people > ?with no health insurance of any sort will under Trumpcare increase by 1 > 4 million > ?by this time next year, and the number will reach 24 million by 2026. All > this is of course a bad news for poor people but it is also bad news for > rich people because it will decrease the likelihood their heads will remain > firmly attached to their shoulders. > > ?So given the above definition is Trump intelligent? > > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 18:32:28 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:32:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Didn't we add the [GOV] tag so we could go to a thread without having to worry whether it would be yet another Trump conversation? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 19:57:25 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:57:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?>> ? >> So given the above definition is Trump intelligent? > > > ?> ? > If we knew what his goals were, > ?Goals? ?I don't think Trump has goals, he just does stuff. > ?> ? > then we could judge. Dangerous to make assumptions about what he is > thinking. > ?Thinking? I see no evidence Trump was thinking when he tweeted Obama was wiretapping him, or that he won the popular vote, or that he had the largest inauguration? crowd ever, or that vaccinations cause autism, or that the true unemployment rate was 42% before January 20 but 5% now, or .... John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 20:21:09 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:21:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thinking? I see no evidence Trump was thinking when he tweeted Obama was wiretapping him, or that he won the popular vote, or that he had the largest inauguration? crowd ever, or that vaccinations cause autism, or that the true unemployment rate was 42% beforeJanuary 20 but 5% now, or .... John K Clark But seriously: given his age, I have to wonder if he is in early stages of senility of some kind. Some of his actions are mysterious: he cut the State Dept. by 37% and did not even talk with the head of it about or inform him in any way. These things are just not the output of a rational person. Some think he a big narcissist, but I think he has gone way beyond that and is actually delusional, and I mean that word just as the textbook in Abnormal Psych uses it. bill w On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:57 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?>> ? >>> So given the above definition is Trump intelligent? >> >> >> ?> ? >> If we knew what his goals were, >> > > ?Goals? ?I don't think Trump has goals, he just does stuff. > > >> ?> ? >> then we could judge. Dangerous to make assumptions about what he is >> thinking. >> > > ?Thinking? I see no evidence Trump was thinking when he tweeted Obama > was wiretapping him, or that he won the popular vote, or that he had the > largest inauguration? crowd ever, or that vaccinations cause autism, or > that the true unemployment rate was 42% before January 20 but 5% now, or > .... > > 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 Tue Mar 14 20:42:44 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:42:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the tao is silent - Smullyan, Message-ID: I learned from this book, and found out that maybe I am a bit of a Moralist. Not a flaming prophet or even a big scold, but one who can look down his nose at some people, and that is definitely not Taoist. I will rethink this. Is this consistent with Libertarianism? Do LIbertarians believe that authoritarians should be free to be that way as long as we are not affected, or do we wish that they would change? I also learned with some confidence what the Tao is not, though not what it is, as he dodges that all the way through the book. It also reminded me of the theories of Carl Rogers: he believed that people were born good,and that the way to raise them was by a method he called 'unconditional positive regard'. This has been misinterpreted to claim that he as a father would let a child go play in traffic or other dangerous or evil things. The Tao, according the Smullyan, believes that it is rules and the like that keep people from being good. I see that I will be doing some heavy reading in libertarianism to see just what connection exists between it and the Tao. Anyone wanting to discuss Tao privately can reach me at foozler83 at gmail.com bill w. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 21:17:55 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:17:55 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 2017 California 'super-bloom' Message-ID: Spring is in the air and the wildflowers are blooming in Southern California. In fact, the eastern part of the region is experiencing a ?super bloom? unlike anything seen in the area since 2005. (incl. photos) According to park officials, the super bloom is just getting started, and flowers should continue to speckle the landscape until at least the end of the month. The blooms were brought on by a wet winter, which brought seven inches of rainfall to the park, as National Geographic reports. ------------------- (No sightings of Trump there yet). :) BillK From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 21:24:00 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 14:24:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 2017 California 'super-bloom' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 14, 2017 2:19 PM, "BillK" wrote: (No sightings of Trump there yet). :) Despite what many would have you believe, he is not the sole source of fertilizer in the US. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 21:32:17 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 16:32:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 2017 California 'super-bloom' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, BillK - I 'd like to see more sharing like this bill w On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:17 PM, BillK wrote: > Spring is in the air and the wildflowers are blooming in Southern > California. In fact, the eastern part of the region is experiencing a > ?super bloom? unlike anything seen in the area since 2005. > > california-where-to-find-los-angeles> > > (incl. photos) > According to park officials, the super bloom is just getting started, > and flowers should continue to speckle the landscape until at least > the end of the month. The blooms were brought on by a wet winter, > which brought seven inches of rainfall to the park, as National > Geographic reports. > > ------------------- > > > (No sightings of Trump there yet). :) > > > 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 Tue Mar 14 21:55:40 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:55:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the tao is silent - Smullyan, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Do LIbertarians believe that authoritarians should be free to be that way > as long as we are not affected, or do we wish that they would change? Yes, libertarians don't care what other people think, only what they do. Until an authoritarian violates someone else's rights, they're left alone. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 21:57:03 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 17:57:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [Exi] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58C43E31.4020302@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:59 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > Quantitative information is that which is represented with abstracted > numerically comparable values, like 1, 2... ?That's what languages do, represent things or concepts with symbols, and mathematics is a language. ? > ?> ? > What is physically representing the numerical 1, 2... value is irrelevant, > or abstracted away. When doing linguistic reasoning it's arbitrary what particular symbol you choose to represent a idea, but once you've chosen it you can't arbitrarily change it and expect your reasoning to produce the correct conclusion. ? > ?> ? > Many people, like John, are predicting that it will always be impossible > to eff the ineffable or that it will be impossible for me to know anything > about John's redness. I, on the other hand, am predicting that it will > soon be possible to eff the ineffable, ?You will use some theory that says the redness qualia you are experiencing right now is the same redness qualia I am experiencing. Well maybe you are, but how could you ever know you are? How will your ever know your theory is correct? In mathematics there are a infinite number true statements that can never be proven because they have no proof, they're just true. ?> ? > A simplified example testable theory is that glutamate is the objectively > observable side of subjective elemental redness. ?The brain consists of more than just glutamate ?, so you're saying that when ? glutamate ? interacts with the non-? glutamate ? part of the brain a redness qualia is produced. ?I'm saying that if something that is not glutamate ? but intercts with the brain in the same was a ? redness qualia ? will also be produced, and there is nothing particularly red about ? glutamate ?, it's just the arbitrary symbol one particular human brain uses to represent red.? > ?> ? > In other words, the observable physical qualities of glutamate are one and > the same as the qualities we can subjectively experience as redness. Neither glutamate ? nor the English word "red" is red, both are just signals that some brains use to represent red, and that chemical and that word works as well as any but another word of chemical could have been used as long as consistency is maintained. ? ?> ? > So, if you can prove that if you have one, you always have the other, and > only the other, the theory has been proven. You will have done a lot more than that! If you have proven that something can effect the brain in exactly the same way that glutamate ? does but it does NOT produce the redness qualia then you will have proven that reductionism, and thus science, doesn't work. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. ?> ? > if you swap a part for another part, that interacts with it's neighbors in > the same way, the system as a whole will behave in the same way. I > completely agree with this, ?Good.? ?> ? > but the way you do the substitution is erroneous, and you are corrupting > the system by always insisting you must be able to remove any way to > compare one quality to another, no matter where you theorized that it might > be. ?That's called reductionism and despite a lot of bad press from the new age crowd it works brilliantly. Good thing too, if reductionism didn't work and we had to understand everything before we could understand anything we wouldn't understand one damn thing. What separates a great scientist from the not so great is the ability to tell one part from another and the ability to tell that 2 apparently different parts are actually the same part looked at with a different angle ?> ? > I assert that if your theory is true, then there must be some "function" > that is the redness function, and there must be some other function that > must be detectably different that is the greenness function. ? I strongly disagree. ? If I exchange the steering wheel and the back left tire on you car it will behave very differently so you'd be justified in saying the ? steering wheel and the tire are different parts; but if I exchange your "redness function" with your "greenness function" your external behavior will not change at all, and even more important subjectively you would have no way of knowing that such a exchange had even happened. So unless there is something that is neither objective nor subjective no change has been made at all and we can then use Leibniz ?'? s ? Identity of indiscernibles ? to conclude that the redness function and the greenness function are not separate parts at all but are just different aspects of the same part, the color differentiation part. I mean, if switching them makes no objective difference, and ? switching them makes no ? subjective ? difference ? , then I think it's safe to say there is no difference period. > ?> ? > If you include the ability of the system to behave the same, including > comparison of redness and greenness (whether they are material or > functional) so that it preserves the ability to say that redness is > different than greenness, only then can you consider it to be "behaving the > same" ?I agree ? that redness is different than greenness ?, but I think something else is true too, if you exchanged the meanings of the words "redness" and "greenness" it would still be true that ? redness is different than greenness ?.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 14 22:46:46 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 15:46:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] handle! Message-ID: <007f01d29d14$dcb32380$96196a80$@att.net> Oh this is cool. It stands 6.5 ft tall, travels at 9 mph and jumps 4 feet vertically. It uses electric power to operate both electric and hydraulic actuators, with a range of about 15 miles on one battery charge. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=-7xvqQeoA8c Did you guys catch the robot Olympics that was only about a year ago? Boston Dynamics is really on it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 14 23:33:35 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:33:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the tao is silent - Smullyan, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ?Yes, libertarians don't care what other people think, only what they do. Until an authoritarian violates someone else's rights, they're left alone. -Dave? I think that's very consistent with libertarianism - but. Authoritarians tend to want to tell people what to do, lay down rules - nonnegotiable - scold, punish, be very cognizant of hierarchies. All of that tells me that they are going to irritate me a lot, even though I'll smile and tell them that I'll do what I want and you can jump in the lake. My mother told me a story on myself: I was about three years old and had done something bad. My mother then started in on me and I told her, "Women don't tell men what to do." Already a bit of a libertarian, eh? I was very lucky not to have authoritarian parents. We are by definition nonconformists and what authoritarians love most is conformity, so there will always be a built-in conflict between us. bill w On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 4:42 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Do LIbertarians believe that authoritarians should be free to be that way >> as long as we are not affected, or do we wish that they would change? > > > Yes, libertarians don't care what other people think, only what they do. > Until an authoritarian violates someone else's rights, they're left alone. > > -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 johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 00:49:05 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:49:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] handle! In-Reply-To: <007f01d29d14$dcb32380$96196a80$@att.net> References: <007f01d29d14$dcb32380$96196a80$@att.net> Message-ID: Thanks Spike that is amazing! Forget immigrants, bad trade deals and currency manipulation; technology in general and robots in particular is the force that will power economic change. John K Clark On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:46 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > Oh this is cool. It stands 6.5 ft tall, travels at 9 mph and jumps 4 feet > vertically. It uses electric power to operate both electric and hydraulic > actuators, with a range of about 15 miles on one battery charge. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=-7xvqQeoA8c > > > > > Did you guys catch the robot Olympics that was only about a year ago? > Boston Dynamics is really on it. > > > > 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 Mar 15 01:46:50 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 18:46:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] handle! In-Reply-To: References: <007f01d29d14$dcb32380$96196a80$@att.net> Message-ID: <00fe01d29d2e$047a8340$0d6f89c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 5:49 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] handle! >?Thanks Spike that is amazing! Forget immigrants, bad trade deals and currency manipulation; technology in general and robots in particular is the force that will power economic change. John K Clark https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=-7xvqQeoA8c Ja. I am particularly astonished at the controls engineering aspect of the problem. The breakthroughs we are seeing in controls engineering must be the fruition of a trend I saw during my whole career: digital control theory, as opposed to the slow and laborious classical theory. Could be that plenty of us held on to classical control theory because the math in it is just so crazy cool. We watched how lame were the competitors in the recent robot Olympiad, then we compare to Handle. This video in particular made it clear that plenty of human labor will be practical to replace soon. Everywhere across the political spectrum are now pretty much forced to at least see human society has an awesome challenge ahead of us: we don?t know what most people will do for a living when robots really can do plenty of it, can do it better, cheaper, faster, safer and they don?t go on strike. Regardless of whether we have solutions, these guys are coming anyway. spike On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:46 PM, spike > wrote: Oh this is cool. It stands 6.5 ft tall, travels at 9 mph and jumps 4 feet vertically. It uses electric power to operate both electric and hydraulic actuators, with a range of about 15 miles on one battery charge. https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=-7xvqQeoA8c Did you guys catch the robot Olympics that was only about a year ago? Boston Dynamics is really on it. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 05:29:20 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 22:29:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Careful with the quoting. You attributed to you my line, and vice versa. I've sorted it out here. On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 6:46 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> The data could include how long since the neuron last fired At any given >> moment, a neuron is either firing or not, even if a given neuron's recent >> firing history is critical data that simplified ANNs often ignore. > > My understanding is that a neuron is always firing. It has an idle speed > and if inhibitory stimuli come in it slows down, and if excitatory it speeds > up. At any given instant, a neuron may either be firing or have a time until next firing - but a firing is a (mostly) discrete event, with one firing distinct from the next. If it was not distinct - if it was "always firing" - then there would be no such thing as "speed" of firing. Rather than toggle on then off at various rates, it would simply be always on. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Mar 15 14:52:25 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:52:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> Brent: > I'm using "qualitative" in relation to qualia. As in a redness qualia (sic) has a specific set of detectable subjective and objective qualities. > Or a redness experience is qualitatively different than a greenness experience. Oh, that's interesting. So a specific quale has a specific set of detectable objective, um, qualities? Hang on, that doesn't make sense! I assume you mean objective *properties*, things that can be measured. In other words quantitative data, not qualitative. And of course, a quale has a certain set of detectable /subjective/ properties, that's the whole point of the idea of qualia. They are experiences detectable by the subject. So you are saying that there is something measurably different about someone's brain when they look at a red object to when they look at a green one. I suppose that must be true, although I doubt if we know how to do that measurement, it must be horribly complicated. And I'm not sure if this holds if that person looks at /any/ red object vs. /any/ green object, rather than say a red ball when you're in a good mood after a nice meal vs. a green ball under similar circumstances. Could we be sure that it's true of a red ball seen during a game of tennis vs. the memory of a red ball seen in a photograph of that same game of tennis? I honestly don't know. The more I think about it, the more remarkable I find your confidence that there is such a specific set of detectable objective properties. What leads you to that conclusion? And even if it is true, I don't see how this could extend to comparisons between individuals, so it's of limited use for detecting if some random person was seeing something red or not. > There is no translation mechanism involved with the qualitative values of a redness we can experience. Er, you just said that there is: "a redness qualia (sic) has a specific set of detectable ... objective ..." So if we can hook someone up to a decector of some kind (an MRI scanner, say), and after a set of tests (probably lots of tests!), come up with a characteristic signal that occurs when the subject looks at a red ball, we'd be able to have them look at an object and tell from the signals alone whether he was looking at a red ball or not. Or, you seem to claim, any red object. If this works, then you have a translation mechanism. This precise set of signals from the MRI scanner = an experience of 'red' in this specific experimental subject (or at least an eel wearing a red dinner jacket in a hovercraft, or whatever the test data was). > Effing the ineffable is still simply theoretical, yet to be proven by science. > Many people, like John, are predicting that it will always be impossible to eff the ineffable or that it will be impossible for me to know anything about John's redness. Well, you could ask him. > A simplified example testable theory is that glutamate is the objectively observable side of subjective elemental redness Please, stop with the glutamate and the 'elemental' redness. It has been pointed out many times that this concept is just wrong. By all means, talk about detectable conditions or events (a specific pattern of spike trains in a certain set of nerve tracts, or whatever) corresponding to reported experiences (like seeing red), but obstinately sticking with a concept that directly contradicts what we know about neuroscience is not helping. "It's a simplification" is not an excuse. As I've pointed out already, it's not a simplification, it's a fabrication. > So, if you can prove that if you have one, you always have the other If the results of the MRI experiment above on Bob are applied to Susan, how can you say with confidence, without repeating the whole experiment again on Susan, that she also sees red when the same signals are observed? What if she insists that she is seeing pink? You'd have to calibrate the system for every single individual, and I'm betting you'd always find exceptions who say "I'm looking at a red ball" when the signals are totally different, or "I'm looking at a polar bear" when they are the same. But by all means, do the experiment. You may be right. With enough experiments on enough individuals, it may be possible to arrive at a standard set of neural signals that reliably indicate an abstract experience of 'red'. I'm skeptical*, but willing to be persuaded by hard experimental evidence. Ben Zaiboc * to say the least. Consider all the myriad ways that people learn the concept of 'red'. The different experiences and circumstances, different eyes, bodies, environments, histories, etc., tied up with the linguistic label 'red'. Consider the huge variety of brain-states across billions of people, that lead them all to say "I'm seeing a red ball". There are languages that don't distinguish between 'blue' and 'green'. What does this mean for the subjective experience of the people who speak them? How could a 'test for experiencing blueness' apply to them? Ben From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 16:25:30 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:25:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 Will Steinberg wrote: ?> ? > Didn't we add the [GOV] tag so we could go to a thread without having to > worry whether it would be yet another Trump conversation? > ? It's odd. I've been on this list continuously for a long time and from George Bush Senior through Obama there was never any hesitation shown about criticizing the sitting president, in fact it has often been one of the favorite topics of conversation, but now that Trump is Commander In Chief most have gotten very squeamish about saying anything negative about ?our? fearless leader even though he's the most anti-libertarian president ? ? in a century and the most ignorant. It's odd. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 15 16:44:47 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 09:44:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 9:26 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] labels etc. IQ On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 Will Steinberg > wrote: ?> ?>?didn't we add the [GOV] tag so we could go to a thread without having to worry whether it would be yet another Trump conversation? ? >?It's odd. I've been on this list continuously for a long time?there was never any hesitation shown about criticizing the sitting president?John K Clark? I think we all just beat the life out of the topic in about April and May of 2016. I don?t see that anyone has managed to beat any life back into it since then. There are topics vaguely related to politics which are of interest to techno-futurists. Anyone who is paying a modicum of attention can scarcely fail to notice how quickly robots are developing and can easily see their potential in disrupting longstanding traditions and assumptions. This is a notion I have been toying with recently. We know that western society has prospered because it is open-minded and adaptable. We have generally shown that we can gradually dismiss religion, yet get by as a society without it. We know there are more traditional societies which are struggling with the whole concept of rapid change and are not handling it particularly well. OK sure, we get that. But what if it keeps accelerating, and we find that western civilization gets to the point where it isn?t adequately coping with change either? We have some test cases coming in the immediately foreseeable: the driverless cars work. They will replace millions of low-end jobs. The mechanical burger-bots work, and are under construction. Plenty of us will eat there just to watch a machine make our meal; no hostility toward low-end workers at all, just a fascination with the progress of controls engineering (which is perhaps one of the very coolest fields of engineering out there.) We know that controls tech is rapidly enabling a third field of low-end employment: cleaning. I haven?t mentioned the harvest-bots because I don?t know much about those and haven?t really followed the progress, but I can vaguely guess where we are now. OK then, regardless of one?s political outlook, one should really ponder: what are the impacts of simultaneously eliminating or reducing two (or more) well-known low-end employers? There is no point in calling out the names of particular leaders, past, present or future, for they don?t know what to do either, and even if they did, they might not get elected, and even if elected, they might not be able to put their vision to work. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 17:26:34 2017 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:26:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> References: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, spike wrote: > OK then, regardless of one?s political outlook, one should really ponder: > what are the impacts of simultaneously eliminating or reducing two (or > more) well-known low-end employers? I'm a libertarian, so not a huge fan of entitlements, but I'd rather see the defense budget slashed to provide "universal" health care, housing, and food, than the ridiculous stuff Trump is planning. But that's short term. In 10-15 years if we haven't drastically changed course, things will probably be pretty dire. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 17:44:55 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:44:55 +0000 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> References: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 15 March 2017 at 16:44, spike wrote: > I think we all just beat the life out of the topic in about April and May of > 2016. I don?t see that anyone has managed to beat any life back into it > since then. > I haven't noticed any posts from the half of the US that supports Trump, so there is not much scope for discussion of opposing views. It is just shock / horror posts about how terrible Trump is (in the poster's opinion). So not much of interest really. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 17:59:14 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:59:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > At any given instant, a neuron may either be firing or have a time > until next firing - but a firing is a (mostly) discrete event, with > one firing distinct from the next. > > If it was not distinct - if it was "always firing" - then there would > be no such thing as "speed" of firing. Rather than toggle on then off > at various rates, it would simply be always on. > ?------------- There is a great deal of controversy about rate of firing, from about 1 every 6 seconds to 200 per second, up to a couple of thousand at the fastest (for cortical neurons). By always firing I meant only that it never rested more than a few seconds at the very most. Yes, discrete - absolute refractory period.? So, again, that gives three states - not changing speed, slowing, increasing, unlike the ANN which is set to respond (say, gives an output of 1), or not respond - an output of 0. That is a simplified version of the neuron, I agree. But if they are trying to model the neuron, why not set up the three state reality? 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 17:59:57 2017 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:59:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:25 PM, John Clark wrote: > > ...most have gotten very squeamish about saying anything negative about >> ?our? >> fearless leader... >> > Incorrect, John. We were just tired of it getting brought up (by you) on threads that were unrelated. General policy I've noticed on this list over the past decade is to start a new thread when you make a tangent. It's rude. And the [GOV] tag is because we are generally a transhumanism related listhost. You could certainly make the argument that Trump poses an existential threat to our stated purpose and so discussing that takes precedence, but if he is able to make us stop discussing transhumanism with erhm spooky action at a distance (stupid action at a distance?) then he's kind of won in that regard too. John if you remember I was nearly as vocal and profane as you when telling people how awful of an idea it would be (and was) to vote for anyone but Hillary. And I was happy to see the list depart from something besides older white men anxiously checking their watches and talking about freezing their heads (sorry bout that one.) But John we could have a thread about CRISPR and you would come in and say "You know who else has DNA? DONALD FUCKING TRUMP!" I just don't understand what you are trying to accomplish. If you want to effect political change then there are a lot of better ways to go about it. Perhaps this is the only email listhost you subscribe to, though I sort of doubt that. If so, I encourage you to go to one where you will not meet such resistance and annoyance (rightfully) for continuously derailing threads. I fucking loathe Trump and I still am tired of your posts on him, kinda like some boy who cried wolf deal. An extra ridiculous thing is that this thread seemed to have a pretty easy on-topic lead in to the Trump stuff by discussing changes in the political climate, but for some reason you introduced the topic with a non-sequitur. If anyone was wondering, here is the original post in this thread just so it doesn't get buried: On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 3:55 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Re changing political opinions: perhaps the best measure of intelligence, > and my favorite, is the ability to adapt to new situations. > > If your opinions on nearly anything are the same as they were last year, > or ten years ago, then you aren't moving with the times - not adapting, not > thinking much about the issues, not learning other points of view. Now > probably you won't change such things as your favorite music, that sort of > thing, your mother's apple pie. > > There are good reasons to stay with basic principles, and you need really > impressive changes in the environment to change those, but many of them > will have to be adapted to new situations, new data, new news, new people > affecting your life, new ways of thinking about your principles, beliefs, > likes and dislikes. > > All of you know all of this, so I am just reminding you of 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 18:04:11 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:04:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> Message-ID: bill k wrote: I haven't noticed any posts from the half of the US that supports Trump, so there is not much scope for discussion of opposing views. It is just shock / horror posts about how terrible Trump is (in the poster's opinion). So not much of interest really. ------------------------------------- I am afraid that this is correct. Trump et al are goofing up right and left and there's no use in documenting every misstep - is there? I think it's just the redundancy that some of us are objecting to, not the political content, if I am right. As we all seem to be agreed, there are no differences among us to debate. bill w On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:44 PM, BillK wrote: > On 15 March 2017 at 16:44, spike wrote: > > I think we all just beat the life out of the topic in about April and > May of > > 2016. I don?t see that anyone has managed to beat any life back into it > > since then. > > > > I haven't noticed any posts from the half of the US that supports > Trump, so there is not much scope for discussion of opposing views. It > is just shock / horror posts about how terrible Trump is (in the > poster's opinion). > So not much of interest really. > > 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 Mar 15 18:08:04 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:08:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> References: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2017 9:59 AM, "spike" wrote: I haven?t mentioned the harvest-bots because I don?t know much about those and haven?t really followed the progress, but I can vaguely guess where we are now. IIRC, that's more economics than tech: there is way more installed infrastructure to upgrade than in most industries (since farming is among the oldest professions), and absolute profit margins (as measured in dollars) with which to fund upgrades are smaller per facility (farm, in this case), so of course it is going slower. But it's happening. Buzzword of the moment is "agtech". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 19:26:18 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:26:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2017 11:00 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > At any given instant, a neuron may either be firing or have a time > until next firing - but a firing is a (mostly) discrete event, with > one firing distinct from the next. > > If it was not distinct - if it was "always firing" - then there would > be no such thing as "speed" of firing. Rather than toggle on then off > at various rates, it would simply be always on. > ?------------- There is a great deal of controversy about rate of firing, from about 1 every 6 seconds to 200 per second, up to a couple of thousand at the fastest (for cortical neurons). By always firing I meant only that it never rested more than a few seconds at the very most. Yes, discrete - absolute refractory period.? Right. And during that refractory period, the output is 0, regardless of how long it will be or has been to the next/previous firing. So, again, that gives three states - not changing speed, slowing, increasing No, two states: firing, or between firings. You are declaring the acceleration to be a state, when the state is more like the current position, and the simplification is that most ANNs don't even consider velocity let alone acceleration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 20:09:34 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:09:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 15, 2017 11:00 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> At any given instant, a neuron may either be firing or have a time >> until next firing - but a firing is a (mostly) discrete event, with >> one firing distinct from the next. >> >> If it was not distinct - if it was "always firing" - then there would >> be no such thing as "speed" of firing. Rather than toggle on then off >> at various rates, it would simply be always on. >> > > ?------------- > There is a great deal of controversy about rate of firing, from about 1 > every 6 seconds to 200 per second, up to a couple of thousand at the > fastest (for cortical neurons). By always firing I meant only that it > never rested more than a few seconds at the very most. Yes, discrete - > absolute refractory period.? > > > Right. And during that refractory period, the output is 0, regardless of > how long it will be or has been to the next/previous firing. > > So, again, that gives three states - not changing speed, slowing, > increasing > > > No, two states: firing, or between firings. > > You are declaring the acceleration to be a state, when the state is more > like the current position, and the simplification is that most ANNs don't > even consider velocity let alone acceleration. > ?-------------------? ?OK, I think we are in agreement: you and the ANN at looking at the state of the neuron at a fixed point in time, and I am looking at it over a period of time. Maybe we need to look at both to understand the neuron? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 20:40:29 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:40:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: addition - see at bottom On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On Mar 15, 2017 11:00 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> >>> At any given instant, a neuron may either be firing or have a time >>> until next firing - but a firing is a (mostly) discrete event, with >>> one firing distinct from the next. >>> >>> If it was not distinct - if it was "always firing" - then there would >>> be no such thing as "speed" of firing. Rather than toggle on then off >>> at various rates, it would simply be always on. >>> >> >> ?------------- >> There is a great deal of controversy about rate of firing, from about 1 >> every 6 seconds to 200 per second, up to a couple of thousand at the >> fastest (for cortical neurons). By always firing I meant only that it >> never rested more than a few seconds at the very most. Yes, discrete - >> absolute refractory period.? >> >> >> Right. And during that refractory period, the output is 0, regardless of >> how long it will be or has been to the next/previous firing. >> >> So, again, that gives three states - not changing speed, slowing, >> increasing >> >> >> No, two states: firing, or between firings. >> >> You are declaring the acceleration to be a state, when the state is more >> like the current position, and the simplification is that most ANNs don't >> even consider velocity let alone acceleration. >> > ?-------------------? > > ?OK, I think we are in agreement: you and the ANN at looking at the state > of the neuron at a fixed point in time, and I am looking at it over a > period of time. Maybe we need to look at both to understand the neuron > ?. > ?addition - come to think of it, whether the neuron is firing or not at a specific point in time, is a function of where on its body you measure the chemical exchange; we know that the spike travels the length of the cell body, a traveling wave, such that at the receiving end - the dendrite - you can measure the influx of ions into the body, whereas at its opposite end nothing is happening yet. Maybe this makes no difference. What do I know? > ? > ? > > >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 21:57:45 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:57:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? Message-ID: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-republicans-would-let-employers-demand-workers-rsquo-genetic-test-results/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20170315 bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 22:21:48 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:21:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] labels etc. IQ In-Reply-To: References: <006801d29dab$7569eb90$603dc2b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 Will Steinberg wrote: ?>? > And the [GOV] tag is because > ? [...] > ?You act as if this were ?a long honored ?Extropian ?tradition. I n the entire history of the list how many threads have used the [GOV]? ?tag?? 2? 3? ?> ? > John if you remember I was nearly as vocal and profane as you when telling > people how awful of an idea it would be (and was) to vote for anyone but > Hillary. ?And that is to your credit, but w hat I remember most vividly is a order of magnitude more anti-Hillary rhetoric on this list than anti-Trump. ? ?> ? > If anyone was wondering, here is the original post in this thread just so > it doesn't get buried: > > >> ?>> ? >> Re changing political opinions: perhaps the best measure of >> intelligence, and my favorite, is the ability to adapt to new situations. > > ?And a changing situation is why I have very recently had to adapt my previous opinion that the amount of money you have should strictly be a function of the nature of your job, how well you do that job, how wisely you choose your parents, and any coins the rich *voluntarily* deem to throw your way. I no longer think that idea is compatible with the long term survival of civilization. I have a hunch that is not the last core belief I will need to modify before the singularity, and I also have a hunch many if not most on this list disagree and ?today ? have the exact same libertarian philosophy they had a decade ago despite radically different circumstances. But I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. ? John K Clark? ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 15 22:28:46 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:28:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019101d29ddb$83133b40$8939b1c0$@att.net> >? Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-republicans-would-let-employers-demand-workers-rsquo-genetic-test-results/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20170315 >?bill w I can imagine an alternative deal whereby a health insurance company would offer a discount in exchange for a spit sample. Scenario: insurance company with millions of clients with DNA is able to do correlation studies, do a pumped-up version of what 23&Me attempted and mostly failed to do. 23&Me relied on participant surveys. This is some of the least reliable data sets imaginable: most patients don?t know what is wrong with them. Now if the insurance companies had this info, they know what is wrong with the patients because they pay the medical bills. For the price of privacy, humanity could have access to more medically-useful DNA/disease correlations. In exchange, perhaps we could require the insurance companies to make the knowledge public domain? Alternative: a volunteer identity-obscured data pool whereby participants would give their medical records and DNA to the whole scientific world, knowing that it might involve personal sacrifices. Alternative: a volunteer identity-included public domain DNA and medical records database? We could perhaps get volunteers among the elderly who have little to lose and much to give? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 23:50:58 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:50:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 2017 California 'super-bloom' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: On Mar 14, 2017 2:19 PM, "BillK" wrote: > > ?> ? > (No sightings of Trump there yet). :) > > > ?> ? > Despite what many would have you believe, he is not the sole source of > fertilizer in the US. > ? True, but Russian billionaire and accused murderer Dmitry Rybolovlev ? is known as "The King Of Fertilizer" and in 2008 Rybolovlev ? payed Trump $100,000,000 for a Palm Beach ?Florida ? house Trump bought 2 years before for only $40,000,000. Incidentally Palm ?B each ?was in a down real estate market during ? the 2 years Trump owned the house, and to this day the King Of Fertilizer has never set foot in ?that? house. ?I can't prove anything but s ome? deal ?s? smell a bit like fertilizer to me. ? ? John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 15 23:54:57 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:54:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 2017 California 'super-bloom' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ?Sorry. How the above post got posted to this thread rather than the one about a certain person that will go nameless I don't understand. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 00:39:13 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 19:39:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? In-Reply-To: <019101d29ddb$83133b40$8939b1c0$@att.net> References: <019101d29ddb$83133b40$8939b1c0$@att.net> Message-ID: spike wrote - For the price of privacy, humanity could have access to more medically-useful DNA/disease correlations. ----------- Do you all think it's fair that a person has to give up his DNA in order to get health insurance, or pay a big premium if he doesn't? Because I think that's where it is headed. Example - a person shows up with a double dose of the dominant gene for Huntingdon's chorea. Prognosis - death before 50 (I am guessing here). No company wants this person, and yet he may have other health issues that need insuring before he dies later on. I have lived with two cancers now for about 20 years and my prognosis is still good, yet no insurance company would have give me insurance (I get mine through teacher's retirement, so they had no choice). And I have not been able to get life insurance, not that I really wanted any. Earlier I was mocked a bit for belittling the Big Data problem which results for me in too many garden catalogs. This one goes way beyond personalized ads and spam, right? And way beyond someone having your recorded phone conversations etc. Another point of concern: if you don't voluntarily share your DNA tests, it's very easy to steal my DNA or anyone's. bill w On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 5:28 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>? Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? > > > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/house-republicans- > would-let-employers-demand-workers-rsquo-genetic-test- > results/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20170315 > > > > >?bill w > > > > > > > > I can imagine an alternative deal whereby a health insurance company would > offer a discount in exchange for a spit sample. > > > > Scenario: insurance company with millions of clients with DNA is able to > do correlation studies, do a pumped-up version of what 23&Me attempted and > mostly failed to do. 23&Me relied on participant surveys. This is some of > the least reliable data sets imaginable: most patients don?t know what is > wrong with them. Now if the insurance companies had this info, they know > what is wrong with the patients because they pay the medical bills. For > the price of privacy, humanity could have access to more medically-useful > DNA/disease correlations. > > > > In exchange, perhaps we could require the insurance companies to make the > knowledge public domain? > > > > Alternative: a volunteer identity-obscured data pool whereby participants > would give their medical records and DNA to the whole scientific world, > knowing that it might involve personal sacrifices. > > > > Alternative: a volunteer identity-included public domain DNA and medical > records database? We could perhaps get volunteers among the elderly who > have little to lose and much to give? > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 16 01:05:38 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:05:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? In-Reply-To: References: <019101d29ddb$83133b40$8939b1c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <020e01d29df1$6d8b2380$48a16a80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 5:39 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? spike wrote - For the price of privacy, humanity could have access to more medically-useful DNA/disease correlations. ----------- >?Do you all think it's fair that a person has to give up his DNA in order to get health insurance, or pay a big premium if he doesn't? Because I think that's where it is headed. bill w BillW, our society still hasn?t figured out what we are going to do with this problem of medical insurance. We are so accustomed to looking at it from the insurance consumers point of view, we neglect to ask ourselves what we would do, absent all government regulation, were we to create a business betting on our client?s health. The less we know about the client, the more we much charge to cover the risk cost. I wouldn?t want to be in that biz myself, even if I knew it made good money: too many ethical dilemmas. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 02:36:43 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 21:36:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? In-Reply-To: <020e01d29df1$6d8b2380$48a16a80$@att.net> References: <019101d29ddb$83133b40$8939b1c0$@att.net> <020e01d29df1$6d8b2380$48a16a80$@att.net> Message-ID: the insurance consumers point of view, we neglect to ask ourselves what we would do, absent all government regulation, were we to create a business betting on our client?s health. The less we know about the client, the more we much charge to cover the risk cost. I wouldn?t want to be in that biz myself, even if I knew it made good money: too many ethical dilemmas. spike ------------- Ethical dilemmas don't seem to concern them much. I can't feel too much sympathy from an industry that, as is reported, rejects a certain number of claims of the basis of nothing - just hoping that the client will give up and not file again. But of course I see your point. bill w On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:05 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 15, 2017 5:39 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] the ultimate invasion of privacy? > > > > spike wrote - > > > > For the price of privacy, humanity could have access to more > medically-useful DNA/disease correlations. > > > > ----------- > > >?Do you all think it's fair that a person has to give up his DNA in > order to get health insurance, or pay a big premium if he doesn't? Because > I think that's where it is headed. bill w > > > > > > > > BillW, our society still hasn?t figured out what we are going to do with > this problem of medical insurance. We are so accustomed to looking at it > from the insurance consumers point of view, we neglect to ask ourselves > what we would do, absent all government regulation, were we to create a > business betting on our client?s health. The less we know about the > client, the more we much charge to cover the risk cost. I wouldn?t want to > be in that biz myself, even if I knew it made good money: too many ethical > dilemmas. > > > > 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 col.hales at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 03:42:04 2017 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:42:04 +1100 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI 'Dendritic action potentials' just joined 'somatic action potentials'. The game just changed. ============================================ Moore, J.J., Ravassard, P.M., Ho, D., Acharya, L., Kees, A.L., Vuong, C., and Mehta, M.R. (2017). Dynamics of cortical dendritic membrane potential and spikes in freely behaving rats. Science. Earlier Arxiv version http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/12/28/096941 See http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/03/08/science.aaj1497 and commentary "Why our brains may be 100 times more powerful than believed" here: http://newatlas.com/brains-more-powerful/48357/ ==================================================== Check out the video of the DAP waveform in the supplementary material. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2017/03/08/science.aaj1497.DC1 Neocortical sub- and suprathreshold dendritic membrane potential (DMP) breaking out into localised firing within the dendrite structure. Dendrite firing has been observed for a long time, but this is the first time anyone has seriously accessed its origins and correlated it with behaviour. Collectively the DMP are very strong (as represented by voltage measured in tissue: Higher than somatic action potentials!) and much faster. This is because neural tissue is 90% dendritic and there are collosal numbers of post-synaptic densities (synapses). Talking about action potentials just got orders of magnitude more involved. cheers Colin On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > addition - see at bottom > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >>> On Mar 15, 2017 11:00 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>>> >>>> At any given instant, a neuron may either be firing or have a time >>>> until next firing - but a firing is a (mostly) discrete event, with >>>> one firing distinct from the next. >>>> >>>> If it was not distinct - if it was "always firing" - then there would >>>> be no such thing as "speed" of firing. Rather than toggle on then off >>>> at various rates, it would simply be always on. >>>> >>> >>> ?------------- >>> There is a great deal of controversy about rate of firing, from about 1 >>> every 6 seconds to 200 per second, up to a couple of thousand at the >>> fastest (for cortical neurons). By always firing I meant only that it >>> never rested more than a few seconds at the very most. Yes, discrete - >>> absolute refractory period.? >>> >>> >>> Right. And during that refractory period, the output is 0, regardless >>> of how long it will be or has been to the next/previous firing. >>> >>> So, again, that gives three states - not changing speed, slowing, >>> increasing >>> >>> >>> No, two states: firing, or between firings. >>> >>> You are declaring the acceleration to be a state, when the state is more >>> like the current position, and the simplification is that most ANNs don't >>> even consider velocity let alone acceleration. >>> >> ?-------------------? >> >> ?OK, I think we are in agreement: you and the ANN at looking at the >> state of the neuron at a fixed point in time, and I am looking at it over a >> period of time. Maybe we need to look at both to understand the neuron >> ?. >> > > ?addition - come to think of it, whether the neuron is firing or not at a > specific point in time, is a function of where on its body you measure the > chemical exchange; we know that the spike travels the length of the cell > body, a traveling wave, such that at the receiving end - the dendrite - you > can measure the influx of ions into the body, whereas at its opposite end > nothing is happening yet. Maybe this makes no difference. What do I know? > >> ? >> ? >> > > >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 17:05:48 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 12:05:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] religious thoughts of the day Message-ID: >From Joseph Campbell - Myths to Live By A learned gentleman attending a world conference on the history of religion visited a number of Buddhist and Shinto shrines in Japan. He was puzzled and asked a Shinto priest "You know, I've been now to a good many ceremonies and have seen quite a number of shrines, but I don't get the ideology; I don't get your theology." The priest replied; "I think we don't have ideology. We don't have theology. We dance." JC - "All societies are evil, sorrowful, inequitable; and so they will always be. So if you really want to help this world, what you will have to teach is how to live in it. And that no one can do who has not himself learned how to live in it in the joyful sorrow and sorrowful joy of the knowledge of life as it is." bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 17:57:14 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:57:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:40 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: >> OK, I think we are in agreement: you and the ANN at looking at the state >> of the neuron at a fixed point in time, and I am looking at it over a period >> of time. Maybe we need to look at both to understand the neuron Pretty much - though I'm just explaining what the ANNs' simplification (relative to what you're thinking) is. What you're looking at is closer to understanding actual neurons. > addition - come to think of it, whether the neuron is firing or not at a > specific point in time, is a function of where on its body you measure the > chemical exchange; we know that the spike travels the length of the cell > body, a traveling wave, such that at the receiving end - the dendrite - you > can measure the influx of ions into the body, whereas at its opposite end > nothing is happening yet. Maybe this makes no difference. What do I know? Oh, it can make a difference. Perhaps it would be better to say that ANNs model synapses and the things directly connected to the synapse (which is only parts of the neurons on each side), rather than entire neurons (which might be considered to have multiple if-x-then-input-to-next-stage bits inside themselves). This might be akin to the difference between an individual transistor or gate, and an entire chip (neuron) that is itself part of a larger circuit board (brain). From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 16 21:07:19 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 16:07:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:40 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 3:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> OK, I think we are in agreement: you and the ANN at looking at the > state > >> of the neuron at a fixed point in time, and I am looking at it over a > period > >> of time. Maybe we need to look at both to understand the neuron > > Pretty much - though I'm just explaining what the ANNs' simplification > (relative to what you're thinking) is. What you're looking at is > closer to understanding actual neurons. > > > addition - come to think of it, whether the neuron is firing or not at a > > specific point in time, is a function of where on its body you measure > the > > chemical exchange; we know that the spike travels the length of the cell > > body, a traveling wave, such that at the receiving end - the dendrite - > you > > can measure the influx of ions into the body, whereas at its opposite end > > nothing is happening yet. Maybe this makes no difference. What do I > know? > > Oh, it can make a difference. Perhaps it would be better to say that > ANNs model synapses and the things directly connected to the synapse > (which is only parts of the neurons on each side), rather than entire > neurons (which might be considered to have multiple > if-x-then-input-to-next-stage bits inside themselves). This might be > akin to the difference between an individual transistor or gate, and > an entire chip (neuron) that is itself part of a larger circuit board > (brain). > ?A good discussion - thanks. I still say that according to a book or two I have read, they are going to have to include the now somewhat mysterious influences of the glial cells on the neurons?. A model, of course, has to leave out some factors, but if those factors turn out to be important, we might learn very little about what we are studying. 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 Thu Mar 16 21:08:36 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> References: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Ben, It seems evident from what you say here, that you haven't seen the video on detecting qualia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . I think this will answer most of the questions or issues you are pointing out here. Also, you use the word "red" in ambiguous ways. For me, the word "red" means something has a property such that it reflects something like 650 nm light - the initial cause of a perception process. The final result of this perception process is our knowledge of the "red" thing. This knowledge has a ?redness? quality you can experience. When you say ?red?, I often can?t tell which one you are talking about. This is important because, in cases like inverted qualia, my redness could be more like your greenness, which we both represent ?red? with. You indicated I'm overly confident with this stuff., but the only thing we know for sure is that conscious experienced includes at least 3 elements: an ability to experience redness quale, and ability to experience a greenness quale, and a mechanism the binds these two qualia together to make a composite experience qualia of redness and greenness. It is this binding mechanism which enables us to be aware of both at the same time, so we can compare them, qualitatively, enabling us to verbalize things like: ?yes those are qualitatively different or the same?. You like to think of a redness quale as particular patterns of firing neurons, John thinks of them as ineffable, or not sharable, or not approachable via objective science. Stathis thinks that redness is something functional, independent of any particular hardware. All these are still theoretically possible, or not yet falsified. So, I need to have a term to use that represents all these possible neural correlates of redness to all people. Since most people?s theories about the neural correlates of redness might be are overly complex and lack specificity, so it is almost impossible to describe to people what is required to detect qualia or eff the ineffable. (in the various week, stronger, and strongest, ways. We need to have a basic understanding of the requirements to think about this kind of qualitative theory, so we know how to test for all the many theories, to find out if people have inverted qualia, and so on. So, I?m only confident that we can experience multiple qualia, that something in the brain is the neural correlate of each, and that there is a binding mechanism that enables us to experience all of these, as a composite qualia enabling us to qualitatively compare them. So, in order to verbalize this kind of qualitative information, I need a simple theoretical example which could be use in some simplified world to test the various theories of what qualia might be. Then once everyone, with all their diverse ways of thinking about qualia, can understand how to think in these kinds of qualitative testing ways, they can know how to test if their particular theory is correct or not, and how we might be able to eff the ineffable with their theory. So, instead of trying to describe this relatively simple qualitative theory in all possible, mostly very incomplete and non specific ways of thinking about qualia, I just use this simple theory of how people in a simplified world would be able to detect, eff, qualia and prove various qualitative theories. You, Stathis, and everyone keep complaining about my usage of glutamate, and pointing out problems with it. But this is missing the point. ?Glutamate? is just a simplified term that represents whatever is doing the neural function of a redness experience in an objectively and quantitatively describable way in a simplified world. If you think a redness experience is a set of neurons firing in a particular pattern, then just substitute that idea whenever I use the term ?glutamate?. Stathis needs to substitute the term ?glutamate? with something ?functional? that is a redness quale, and so on. The important part is just that we need some over arching qualitative theory we can all understand, so we can talk to each other, and propose ways to objectively prove which of our various theories are the on right theory, and how to tell if people have inverted qualia and so on. Once a person understands how qualitative theory works in a simplified world, then you can use the same general qualitative ideas to better understand qualia in the real world. Brent On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Ben wrote: > Brent: > > I'm using "qualitative" in relation to qualia. As in a redness qualia > (sic) has a specific set of detectable subjective and objective qualities. > > Or a redness experience is qualitatively different than a greenness > experience. > > Oh, that's interesting. So a specific quale has a specific set of > detectable objective, um, qualities? > > Hang on, that doesn't make sense! I assume you mean objective > *properties*, things that can be measured. In other words quantitative > data, not qualitative. > > And of course, a quale has a certain set of detectable /subjective/ > properties, that's the whole point of the idea of qualia. They are > experiences detectable by the subject. > > So you are saying that there is something measurably different about > someone's brain when they look at a red object to when they look at a green > one. I suppose that must be true, although I doubt if we know how to do > that measurement, it must be horribly complicated. And I'm not sure if this > holds if that person looks at /any/ red object vs. /any/ green object, > rather than say a red ball when you're in a good mood after a nice meal vs. > a green ball under similar circumstances. Could we be sure that it's true > of a red ball seen during a game of tennis vs. the memory of a red ball > seen in a photograph of that same game of tennis? I honestly don't know. > > The more I think about it, the more remarkable I find your confidence that > there is such a specific set of detectable objective properties. What leads > you to that conclusion? > > > And even if it is true, I don't see how this could extend to comparisons > between individuals, so it's of limited use for detecting if some random > person was seeing something red or not. > > > > There is no translation mechanism involved with the qualitative values > of a redness we can experience. > > Er, you just said that there is: "a redness qualia (sic) has a specific > set of detectable ... objective ..." > > So if we can hook someone up to a decector of some kind (an MRI scanner, > say), and after a set of tests (probably lots of tests!), come up with a > characteristic signal that occurs when the subject looks at a red ball, > we'd be able to have them look at an object and tell from the signals alone > whether he was looking at a red ball or not. Or, you seem to claim, any red > object. > > If this works, then you have a translation mechanism. This precise set of > signals from the MRI scanner = an experience of 'red' in this specific > experimental subject (or at least an eel wearing a red dinner jacket in a > hovercraft, or whatever the test data was). > > > > > Effing the ineffable is still simply theoretical, yet to be proven by > science. > > Many people, like John, are predicting that it will always be impossible > to eff the ineffable or that it will be impossible for me to know anything > about John's redness. > > Well, you could ask him. > > > > A simplified example testable theory is that glutamate is the > objectively observable side of subjective elemental redness > > Please, stop with the glutamate and the 'elemental' redness. It has been > pointed out many times that this concept is just wrong. > > By all means, talk about detectable conditions or events (a specific > pattern of spike trains in a certain set of nerve tracts, or whatever) > corresponding to reported experiences (like seeing red), but obstinately > sticking with a concept that directly contradicts what we know about > neuroscience is not helping. "It's a simplification" is not an excuse. As > I've pointed out already, it's not a simplification, it's a fabrication. > > > > So, if you can prove that if you have one, you always have the other > > If the results of the MRI experiment above on Bob are applied to Susan, > how can you say with confidence, without repeating the whole experiment > again on Susan, that she also sees red when the same signals are observed? > What if she insists that she is seeing pink? You'd have to calibrate the > system for every single individual, and I'm betting you'd always find > exceptions who say "I'm looking at a red ball" when the signals are totally > different, or "I'm looking at a polar bear" when they are the same. > > But by all means, do the experiment. You may be right. With enough > experiments on enough individuals, it may be possible to arrive at a > standard set of neural signals that reliably indicate an abstract > experience of 'red'. I'm skeptical*, but willing to be persuaded by hard > experimental evidence. > > > Ben Zaiboc > > * to say the least. Consider all the myriad ways that people learn the > concept of 'red'. The different experiences and circumstances, different > eyes, bodies, environments, histories, etc., tied up with the linguistic > label 'red'. Consider the huge variety of brain-states across billions of > people, that lead them all to say "I'm seeing a red ball". > There are languages that don't distinguish between 'blue' and 'green'. > What does this mean for the subjective experience of the people who speak > them? How could a 'test for experiencing blueness' apply to them? > > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Mar 16 22:39:57 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 22:39:57 +0000 Subject: [ExI] ANN question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58CB143D.9010607@yahoo.com> William Flynn Wallace wrote: >addition - come to think of it, whether the neuron is firing or not at a specific point in time, is a function of where on its body you measure the chemical exchange; we know that the spike travels the length of the cell body, a traveling wave, such that at the receiving end - the dendrite - you can measure the influx of ions into the body, whereas at its opposite end nothing is happening yet. Maybe this makes no difference. What do I know? If I may, I'd like to weigh in on this, knowing a little about neurobiology. Whether a neuron is firing or not is not a function of where you measure it. It's well-defined as the launch of an action potential down the axon of the neuron. Whether or not that action potential is launched is dependent on the sum of the depolarisations across the cell body (synaptic potentials), integrated at the axon hillock, which is the 'root' of the axon. Apart from the axon and axon hillock, the depolarisations fade away over time and distance, and only if they exceed a certain critical value at the axon hillock, does a self-perpetuating action potential arise, which then travels down the axon with no attenuation. The synaptic potentials and the action potential are distinct things. One fades away with time and distance, the other doesn't. So the 'spike' does not traverse the cell body, only the axon. The cell body acts as an integrator in both space and time (spatial and temporal summation) to decide whether or not a spike is generated at the axon hillock. There are different types of ion channels in the cell body and the axon, which ensure this. The simple version is that the cell body (including the dendrites) decides whether or not the neuron will fire, based on a summation of incoming excitatory and inhibitory signals from other neurons, as well as the intrinsic depolarisation of the neuron, and these signals converge on the axon hillock. If the total depolarisation at the axon hillock exceeds the threshold voltage, then an action potential is produced which shoots off down the axon. Neuron cell body = leaky integrator. Axon = lossless transmission of signal. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Mar 16 23:29:19 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 23:29:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58CB1FCF.8030603@yahoo.com> Brent Allsop wrote: > "If you think a redness experience is a set of neurons firing in a particular pattern, then just substitute that idea whenever I use the term glutamate" This is my point: Yes, I do think that 'redness' is a certain set of neurons firing in a particular pattern /in my brain/. Or at least "A red ball right in front of me" is. The abstract concept of 'redness' is likely to be more diverse, and probably corresponds to a whole bunch of different patterns in different networks of neurons, depending on the context in which the abstract concept arises. In someone else's brain, it is very likely to be a different set of neurons firing in a different pattern. You are assuming that it will be the same in everyone. I'm not. In fact, I'm assuming it is almost certainly different in everyone. I'm quite on board with the idea that there are at least 7 billion different ways of producing the subjective experience of something that can be expressed as "a red ball right in front of me". Ben Zaiboc From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 16:47:43 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:47:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > ?> ? > It seems evident from what you say here, that you haven't seen the video > on detecting qualia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . I > think this will answer most of the questions or issues you are pointing out > here. Also, you use the word "red" in ambiguous ways. ? You talk as if I was confused about the difference between objective and subjective ?, but I assure you I am crystal clear on that point ?,? as it is to every sane person. In your video you mention a brilliant scientist who lived her entire life in a black and white world and then one day opens a door and for the first time sees a red rose. What has changed subjectively and objectively? I can't speak for the woman scientists but if it were me I'd be very surprised and delighted at seeing something new that I hadn't even imagined before. ? Objectively if I knew enough ?about her ? neurology ?? ?? I'd say that previously her brain only needed one dimension to represent the texture of objects but now 2 numbers are needed. Previously a scalar was sufficient but now a vector is needed. And even if I didn't know enough neurology to do that I'd still know there is something entirely new here because she would make a noise with her mouth that she had never made before that sounds like "*there is something entirely new here* ?"? . ? ? If instead she saw a white rose her brain would still only need ?one ? number to classify the texture of ?an ? object ?just as she always had ? so the noise made by her mouth would sound like "*I see nothing new here*" ?. ? Suppose there were twin sisters, one lived her entire life in a black and red world and the other lived her entire life in a black and ? ? green ? ? ?world? ?;? what difference in biology could you ?an? outside observer detect between the two? There would be only one difference, in one the red cone cells in the retina showed more wear and tear ?,? while in the other the green cone cell in the retina ?would? . So when one sister opened that door and saw the red rose the red cone cell was stimulated and sent the same signal to the brain it had done billions of time before and her brain had no difficulty classifying the texture of the flower with only one ?number? ? so her brain would send signals to her mouth causing it to make a noise like "*I see nothing new about that flower*". But with the other sister the red cone cell fired for the first time in her life and sent a novel signal to her brain unlike any she received before, a signal in which one number was no longer sufficient to classify ? a texture, ? so her brain would send signals to her mouth causing it to make a noise like " *?Wow, ?* *I see * *?something?* * new about that flower* ?". As far as subjectivity is concerned, although I will never be able to prove or disprove it my strong hunch is that living in a black and red world would be subjectively identical to living in a black and green world. ?I can say that without fear because even if I'm wrong you will never be able to provide evidence that I'm wrong. > ?> ? > You like to think of a redness quale as particular patterns of firing > neurons, > ?If the ? particular pattern of neurons ? firing in my brain changes then my redness quale changes, and if my redness quale changes ?then the ? particular pattern of neurons ? firing in my brain changes; so the only thing a logical man can conclude from that is that my redness quale is caused but the pattern of neurons firing in my brain. And I like to think I am a logical man. Since my brain works that way it is a reasonable hypothesis that your brain does too, but I'm not able to prove that and never will be able to. > ?> ? > John thinks of them as ineffable, or not sharable, or not approachable via > objective science. Stathis thinks that redness is something functional, > independent of any particular hardware. All these are still > theoretically possible, or not yet falsified. > > ?Absolutely nothing about consciousness is falsifiable or provable except for my own consciousness, and even then the evidence is available only to me. That's why consciousness theories are so easy to dream up and that's why consciousness theories are a waste of time and that's why intelligence theories are not. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 17 18:03:38 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:03:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Since my brain works that way it is a reasonable hypothesis that your brain does too, but I'm not able to prove that and never will be able to. john 'Prove' must mean something different to you than it does to me. To me it just means test - oh well, you know that. My point is that you can do the same test thousands of times with different subjects and keep getting the same results. Say you show them a red rose. All except the male color blind will respond 'red'. A fMRI will show much the same firings in their brains from the same areas. Thus prediction of what they say and what went on in their brains is nearly 100% accurate. Now I agree that one cannot show that the experience is exactly the same (but similar, that I would assume), but I would conclude that unless defective, showing red will result in saying red and the same brain areas stimulated. No need to mention consciousness. What more do you want? bill w On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:47 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:08 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> It seems evident from what you say here, that you haven't seen the video >> on detecting qualia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHuqZKxtOf4 . I >> think this will answer most of the questions or issues you are pointing out >> here. Also, you use the word "red" in ambiguous ways. > > > ? > You talk as if I was confused about the difference between objective and > subjective > ?, > but I assure you I am crystal clear on that point > ?,? > as it is to every sane person. In your video you mention a brilliant > scientist who lived her entire life in a black and white world and then one > day opens a door and for the first time sees a red rose. What has changed > subjectively and objectively? I can't speak for the woman scientists but if > it were me I'd be very surprised and delighted at seeing something new that > I hadn't even imagined before. > > ? > Objectively if I knew enough > ?about her ? > neurology > ?? > ?? > I'd say that previously her brain only needed one dimension to represent > the texture of objects but now 2 numbers are needed. Previously a scalar > was sufficient but now a vector is needed. And even if I didn't know enough > neurology to do that I'd still know there is something entirely new here > because she would make a noise with her mouth that she had never made > before that sounds like "*there is something entirely new here* > ?"? > . > ? ? > If instead she saw a white rose her brain would still only need > ?one ? > number to classify the texture of > ?an ? > object > ?just as she always had ? > so the noise made by her mouth would sound like "*I see nothing new here*" > ?. > ? > Suppose there were twin sisters, one lived her entire life in a black and > red world and the other lived her entire life in a black and > ? ? > green > ? ? > ?world? > ?;? > what difference in biology could you > ?an? > outside observer detect between the two? There would be only one > difference, in one the red cone cells in the retina showed more wear and > tear > ?,? > while in the other the green cone cell in the retina > ?would? > . So when one sister opened that door and saw the red rose the red cone > cell was stimulated and sent the same signal to the brain it had done > billions of time before and her brain had no difficulty classifying the > texture of the flower with only one > ?number? > ? so her brain would send signals to her mouth causing it to make a noise > like "*I see nothing new about that flower*". > But with the other sister the red cone cell fired for the first time in > her life and sent a novel signal to her brain unlike any she received > before, a signal in which one number was no longer sufficient to classify > ? a texture, ? > so her brain would send signals to her mouth causing it to make a noise > like " > *?Wow, ?* > *I see * > *?something?* > * new about that flower* > ?". > > As far as subjectivity is concerned, although I will never be able to > prove or disprove it my strong hunch is that living in a black and red > world would be subjectively identical to living in a black and green world. > ?I can say that without fear because even if I'm wrong you will never be > able to provide evidence that I'm wrong. > > >> ?> ? >> You like to think of a redness quale as particular patterns of firing >> neurons, >> > > ?If the ? > particular pattern of neurons > ? firing in my brain changes then my redness quale changes, and if my > redness quale changes ?then > the ? > particular pattern of neurons > ? firing in my brain changes; so the only thing a logical man can conclude > from that is that my redness quale is caused but the pattern of neurons > firing in my brain. And I like to think I am a logical man. > > Since my brain works that way it is a reasonable hypothesis that your > brain does too, but I'm not able to prove that and never will be able to. > > >> ?> ? >> John thinks of them as ineffable, or not sharable, or not approachable >> via objective science. Stathis thinks that redness is something >> functional, independent of any particular hardware. All these are still >> theoretically possible, or not yet falsified. >> >> ?Absolutely nothing about consciousness is falsifiable or provable > except for my own consciousness, and even then the evidence is available > only to me. That's why consciousness theories are so easy to dream up and > that's why consciousness theories are a waste of time and that's why > intelligence theories are not. > > 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 Fri Mar 17 19:27:32 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:27:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:03 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?>> ? >> Since my brain works that way it is a reasonable hypothesis that your >> brain does too, but I'm not able to prove that and never will be able to. >> john > > > > ?> ? > 'Prove' must mean something different to you than it does to me. > ?I don't think so.? > ?> ? > To me it just means test > ?You can't test for consciousness, you can only test for observable behavior.? ?> ? > My point is that you can do the same test thousands of times with > different subjects and keep getting the same results. > ?And none of those results will tell you anything about consciousness unless you use the axiom that consciousness is a unavoidable byproduct of intelligence, because unlike consciousness I can directly detect intelligence in people and things other than myself. ?> ? > Say you show them a red rose. All except the male color blind will > respond 'red'. A fMRI will show much the same firings in their brains > from the same areas. Thus prediction of what they say and what went on in > their brains is nearly 100% accurate. > ?And if I type R-E-D into a Speak and Spell from the 1980's it ? ?will say "red", maybe you're no more conscious than that old toy was. I will never be able to find any evidence for or against such a theory. Or maybe that old Speak and Spell was as conscious as I am. I will never be able to find any evidence for or against that theory either. > ?> ? > A fMRI will show much the same firings in their brains from the same > areas. Thus prediction of what they say and what went on in their brains > is nearly 100% accurate. > ?I don't see how a fMRI machine would be any better at directly detecting consciousness than we are. And I can predict what a Speak and Spell will say nearly 100% of the time, but that is no evidence it's conscious. ?> ? > Now I agree that one cannot show that the experience is exactly the same > (but similar, that I would assume), > ?Your brain is similar to mine but it is not identical, if it were then you would be me. My working assumption is that those differences are not critical for the formation of consciousness but I don't know that for a fact. So although my hunch is that its not true the possibility remains that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the universe; I would estimate that possibility to be about the same as the possibility a computer will never pass the Turing Test. ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 01:53:34 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 18:53:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pi day program Message-ID: <00ba01d29f8a$7474f190$5d5ed4b0$@att.net> My son wrote this program for Pi Day at his elementary school: https://www.khanacademy.org/computer-programming/pi-day/4660935105249280 Times have changed so much. Kids have so many cool resources at their disposal now that we never had. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 02:20:04 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:20:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] kurzweil on the singularity Message-ID: <00d401d29f8e$280e3d80$782ab880$@att.net> I don't know if it is the first time, but it is still amazing to hear a mainstream news source talk about the Singularity: http://video.foxnews.com/v/5363556059001/?#sp=show-clips spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 13:31:31 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 06:31:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space Message-ID: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fish-dont-do-so-well-space-180961817/ I'm more curious about what would happen to vertebrates and other macrobes under lunar or Martian gravity, simulated or actual. 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 Mar 18 14:30:20 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 14:30:20 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 18 March 2017 at 13:31, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fish-dont-do-so-well-space-180961817/ > > I'm more curious about what would happen to vertebrates and other macrobes > under lunar or Martian gravity, simulated or actual. > I thought NASA already knew that? As the article says, under lower gravity everything in the human body gets weaker. Muscles (including the heart) weaken, the body contains less blood, the immune system weakens and bones lose density. After two years on Mars, astronauts would probably be physically unable (or find it nearly impossible) to return to Earth. i.e. they would need a lot of hospital care on returning. A Mars trip might have to be permanent. There is also cosmic ray damage to worry about as Mars and the Moon has no protection. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 15:22:46 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 08:22:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] Fish in space On 18 March 2017 at 13:31, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fish-dont-do-so-well-space-18 > 0961817/ > > I'm more curious about what would happen to vertebrates and other > macrobes under lunar or Martian gravity, simulated or actual. > I can give you a fun bit of data: fish can survive 100g for ten minutes. There is no documentation because it was illegal. When I was a younger man, I was helping set up an experiment on a centrifuge (48 in radius industrial centrifuge, the kind few can access) at China Lake Naval Research. I went to the pet store, bought a dozen neon tetras (because they are cheap) put the hapless characiformes in a thermos bottle, spun them to 100g for ten minutes. After they came out, all survived but were swimming in a spiral manner like a well-hurled football. Later they seemed to have recovered. I have long wanted to repeat that experiment under more favorable circumstances, but now I have no access to a centrifuge of that size. I don't know how many gs a tetra can endure. Do you? spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 15:58:47 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:58:47 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> Message-ID: On 18 March 2017 at 15:22, spike wrote: >>... On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fish in space > > On 18 March 2017 at 13:31, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fish-dont-do-so-well-space-18 >> 0961817/ >> I'm more curious about what would happen to vertebrates and other >> macrobes under lunar or Martian gravity, simulated or actual. >> > > I can give you a fun bit of data: fish can survive 100g for ten minutes. > > There is no documentation because it was illegal. When I was a younger man, > I was helping set up an experiment on a centrifuge (48 in radius industrial > centrifuge, the kind few can access) at China Lake Naval Research. I went > to the pet store, bought a dozen neon tetras (because they are cheap) put > the hapless characiformes in a thermos bottle, spun them to 100g for ten > minutes. After they came out, all survived but were swimming in a spiral > manner like a well-hurled football. Later they seemed to have recovered. > > I have long wanted to repeat that experiment under more favorable > circumstances, but now I have no access to a centrifuge of that size. I > don't know how many gs a tetra can endure. Do you? > I don't think you need an industrial centrifuge nowadays. Your kid could make one out of cardboard and a plastic bag (to hold the water). See: Quote: The result, which spins at over 300 revolutions per second (rps) and generates a centrifugal force about 10,000 times that of gravity, is able to separate blood samples into corpuscles and plasma in less than two minutes. This is a rate comparable to that of electrical centrifuges. Spinning such samples for longer (about 15 minutes is ideal, though that is a lot of effort for a single spinner) can even separate red corpuscles, which may be infected by malarial parasites, from white ones, which cannot be so infected. ------------------ BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 16:29:56 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 16:29:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] HUM: GOV: Trump boosts office supplies economy Message-ID: (Sorry - I couldn't resist it!) :) Trump Haters Spent Millions Making Protest Signs Trump protesters boost January sales of poster board, markers 16 March 2017, 16:55 GMT Quote: Here?s one gauge of the rekindled American enthusiasm for political protest: Sales of poster boards, markers and other sign-making supplies jumped more than 30 percent in the week before Donald Trump?s inauguration and the Jan. 21 Women?s March, according to data from the NPD Group, which tracks sales of consumer goods. That week, Americans spent an estimated $6 million on supplies?not insignificant considering that many of the individual items cost $1 or less. --------- BillK :) :) From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 16:37:59 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:37:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> Message-ID: <009801d2a006$01f2e830$05d8b890$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK > > I have long wanted to repeat that experiment under more favorable > circumstances, but now I have no access to a centrifuge of that size. > I don't know how many gs a tetra can endure. Do you? > I don't think you need an industrial centrifuge nowadays. Your kid could make one out of cardboard and a plastic bag (to hold the water). See: ------------------ BillK _______________________________________________ Hi BillK, Cool but not applicable to fish, even tetras. I can imagine an approach using a rear-wheel drive car or truck. Get a rim, mount your fish-container on it, balance the rim with a counter-weight, go out somewhere far away from potential bystanders/victims of your foolishness, jack up the wheel, change off your tire with the modified rim, run it up to freeway speed to get a couple hundred G (do your engineering correctly (because if the vessel fails you are in for a really bad afternoon (with projectile shrapnel and hapless lifeforms being hurled about))) or... if you don't trust your differential to do something it was never designed to do, jack up both back wheels and let both spin freely. Do let me throw in the usual "Kids, don't try this at home." Note that the usual warning is filled with wiggle room, such as the lack of definition of the terms "kids" and "try" and "home." Of course you wouldn't "try" it at "home" for your neighbors will still be talking about it long after you are dead (those unimaginative souls often disdain the notion of having shrapnel and hapless lifeforms hurled their way) and my "kid" doesn't even own a truck, but I do, and of course Master Yoda has long ago and far away educated us thus: There is no try. There is only do. Or do not. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 16:59:26 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 09:59:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> Message-ID: <009b01d2a009$00e51a50$02af4ef0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] ------------------ BillK _______________________________________________ Hi BillK, >...Cool but not applicable to fish, even tetras. >...I can imagine an approach using a rear-wheel drive car or truck. Get a rim, mount your fish-container on it, balance the rim with a counter-weight, go out somewhere far away from potential bystanders/victims of your foolishness...There is no try. There is only do. Or do not...spike Eh, scratch that, better idea. Electric motorcycle, rear wheel, relieve pressure, remove threaded core on Schrader valve, attach tube with water reservoir and tetras, flush the scaly beasts into tire (you could make a movie about it (call it Spinning Dory)) replace Schrader valve core, pump the tire (just enough to seal the bead (1 atmosphere should be plenty)) turn the bike sideways, run it up to an indicated about 40 mph. With the vertical-axis centrifuge, you get a really pure 100 g without a sinusoidal 99-101g you get with a horizontal-axis truck tire, yet still retain the delightful aspect of having baffled passersby utter an entirely new application for the old phrase: whaaaaaat in the helllllll???? spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 17:20:48 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:20:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> Message-ID: <009c01d2a00b$fce49950$f6adcbf0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 9:59 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [ExI] Fish in space -----Original Message----- From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] ------------------ BillK _______________________________________________ Hi BillK, >>>...Cool but not applicable to fish, even tetras. >>...I can imagine an approach using a rear-wheel drive car or truck. Get a rim, mount your fish-container on it, balance the rim with a counter-weight, go out somewhere far away from potential bystanders/victims of your foolishness...There is no try. There is only do. Or do not...spike >...Eh, scratch that, better idea. Electric motorcycle, rear wheel, relieve pressure, remove threaded core on Schrader valve, attach tube with water reservoir and tetras, flush the scaly beasts into tire (you could make a movie about it (call it Spinning Dory)) ... whaaaaaat in the helllllll???? Spike Think of the wordplay potential: spike, this in-tire idea is absurd. Fish are not playthings. I thought of an additional shortcoming of the in-tire approach: if we want to avoid dismounting the tire from the rim after the experiment, we would need an endoscope to do the post-test observations our test subjects. Ja? So after the test, we relieve the tire pressure, remove valve core, insert fiber-optic endoscope thru hole, make YouTube videos of tetras swimming in spirals. Of course, it is easier to flush the tetras into the tire than it is to flush them back out, so it is in-tirely possible that we must leave the hapless beasts in their rubbery tomb for the remainder of their lives, kinda analogous to Mars One but with a different species, but even that would have potential for a terrific gag. Run the test, make video, replace valve core, pump the tire, ride the bike all over the place, wear out the tire, take it to the local bike shop and Hey, can you change a tire for me, and imagine the puzzled look, especially if you can find a mechanic who has been at it for three or more decades yet has never found water and dead fish on the shop floor after changing a tire. You come back and mechanic tells the story, you get to look at her like she is hallucinating: you found WHAT? Dead fish? Inside my tire? Hey I know a great drug rehab program nearby... and so on. Oh that would be a kick worth sacrificing a dozen tetras, at least from the human point of view. But I digress. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 17:36:07 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 12:36:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: will respond when i get my left hand back - cat scratch infection- nearly had to be in hospital - may yet bill w On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:27 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 2:03 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > ?>> ? >>> Since my brain works that way it is a reasonable hypothesis that your >>> brain does too, but I'm not able to prove that and never will be able to. >>> john >> >> >> >> ?> ? >> 'Prove' must mean something different to you than it does to me. >> > > ?I don't think so.? > > > >> ?> ? >> To me it just means test >> > > ?You can't test for consciousness, you can only test for observable > behavior.? > > > ?> ? >> My point is that you can do the same test thousands of times with >> different subjects and keep getting the same results. >> > > ?And none of those results will tell you anything about consciousness > unless you use the axiom that consciousness is a unavoidable byproduct of > intelligence, because unlike consciousness I can directly detect > intelligence in people and things other than myself. > > ?> ? >> Say you show them a red rose. All except the male color blind will >> respond 'red'. A fMRI will show much the same firings in their brains >> from the same areas. Thus prediction of what they say and what went on in >> their brains is nearly 100% accurate. >> > > ?And if I type R-E-D into a Speak and Spell from the 1980's it ? > ?will say "red", maybe you're no more conscious than that old toy was. I > will never be able to find any evidence for or against such a theory. Or > maybe that old Speak and Spell was as conscious as I am. I will never be > able to find any evidence for or against that theory either. > > >> ?> ? >> A fMRI will show much the same firings in their brains from the same >> areas. Thus prediction of what they say and what went on in their brains >> is nearly 100% accurate. >> > > ?I don't see how a fMRI machine would be any better at directly detecting > consciousness than we are. And I can predict what a Speak and Spell will > say nearly 100% of the time, but that is no evidence it's conscious. > > ?> ? >> Now I agree that one cannot show that the experience is exactly the >> same (but similar, that I would assume), >> > > ?Your brain is similar to mine but it is not identical, if it were then > you would be me. My working assumption is that those differences are not > critical for the formation of consciousness but I don't know that for a > fact. So although my hunch is that its not true the possibility remains > that John K Clark is the only conscious being in the universe; I would > estimate that possibility to be about the same as the possibility a > computer will never pass the Turing Test. ? > > > ? 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 Sat Mar 18 17:35:07 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 10:35:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> Message-ID: <00a301d2a00d$fcd0b140$f67213c0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] >>...You come back and mechanic tells the story, you get to look at her like she is hallucinating: you found WHAT? Dead fish? Inside my tire? Hey I know a great drug rehab program nearby... and so on...spike >...Spike how the hell do you even think of weird crap this this? I don't know man. It just happens, natural causes. I consider my best contribution in 15 yrs of moderating ExI-chat is abolishing the rule that one may not reply to one's own post. I took the old Bobby Kennedy approach and looked at something that had never been and asked Why not? It is not at all clear that he was promoting flushing aquarium fish into a tire or posting in reply to oneself, but...Why not? What if you post some goofy idea that the crowd is too embarrassed to even acknowledge, then come up with still more goofy ideas to support the first one? Kennedy would likely agree that fish in a tire is a perfect example of something which has never been, ja? And why not reply to one's own post, if you get a fun wacky idea? Those things do tend to happen in series. So if you need a reminder, it is perfectly OK to reply to one's own posts. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 18:01:39 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:01:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00bf01d2a011$b1c9db50$155d91f0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering will respond when i get my left hand back - cat scratch infection- nearly had to be in hospital - may yet bill w BillW look at it this way: what if? your hand had been disabled not by whatever revolting beasts entered your system from your cat?s claws, but rather by a stroke? Antibiotics will fix what you have. Best wishes for a speedy recovery my friend. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 18 18:41:43 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:41:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <00bf01d2a011$b1c9db50$155d91f0$@att.net> References: <58C95529.7010805@yahoo.com> <00bf01d2a011$b1c9db50$155d91f0$@att.net> Message-ID: merci beaucoup mon ami bill w On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 1:01 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and > transhumanist engineering > > > > will respond when i get my left hand back - cat scratch infection- > nearly had to be in hospital - may yet > > > > bill w > > > > > > > > BillW look at it this way: what if? your hand had been disabled not by > whatever revolting beasts entered your system from your cat?s claws, but > rather by a stroke? > > > > Antibiotics will fix what you have. > > > > Best wishes for a speedy recovery my friend. > > > > 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 Mar 18 19:39:04 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 19:39:04 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: <009b01d2a009$00e51a50$02af4ef0$@att.net> References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> <009b01d2a009$00e51a50$02af4ef0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 18 March 2017 at 16:59, spike wrote: > >>...I can imagine an approach using a rear-wheel drive car or truck. Get a > rim, mount your fish-container on it, balance the rim with a counter-weight, > go out somewhere far away from potential bystanders/victims of your > foolishness...There is no try. There is only do. Or do not...spike > > > Eh, scratch that, better idea. Electric motorcycle, rear wheel, relieve > pressure, remove threaded core on Schrader valve, attach tube with water > reservoir and tetras, flush the scaly beasts into tire (you could make a > movie about it (call it Spinning Dory)) replace Schrader valve core, pump > the tire (just enough to seal the bead (1 atmosphere should be plenty)) turn > the bike sideways, run it up to an indicated about 40 mph. With the > vertical-axis centrifuge, you get a really pure 100 g without a sinusoidal > 99-101g you get with a horizontal-axis truck tire, yet still retain the > delightful aspect of having baffled passersby utter an entirely new > application for the old phrase: whaaaaaat in the helllllll???? > I think you need to fire up your Matlab to calculate what rpm / wheel diameter produces sufficient g-force. You may not be able to get sufficient rpm. The inventors of the cardboard centrifuge tried different sizes of spinners and found that increasing the size drastically reduced the spin speed. The 1,000 mph car has to have special steel wheels to avoid the wheels disintegrating fron the rotational forces. I remember that some plastic CDs (remember them?) disintegrated in the drive mechanism. Maybe a small spinner with two opposed small plastic bottles with one fish in each bottle might be feasible. The fish should survive if not kept too long in the bottles. You might need to use thin plastic instead of cardboard. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 18 20:29:16 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 13:29:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> <009b01d2a009$00e51a50$02af4ef0$@att.net> Message-ID: <003401d2a026$51405e20$f3c11a60$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 12:39 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Fish in space On 18 March 2017 at 16:59, spike wrote: > >>...I can imagine an approach using a rear-wheel drive car or truck. >>Get a rim, mount your fish-container on it, balance the rim with a counter-weight, go out somewhere far away from potential bystanders/victims of your foolishness... >...I think you need to fire up your Matlab to calculate what rpm / wheel diameter produces sufficient g-force. You may not be able to get sufficient rpm... BillK I did that BillK. Using my truck which has 19 inch rims and 30 inch diameter tires, the speed limit on US freeways would produce about 150 g, assuming the test subject container is mounted at the perimeter of the rim. Assuming a horizontal axle to prevent having to tip my truck on its side, the water-bound beasts would suffer a pulsating acceleration plus or minus one g, but that might not mess up the results all that much. What would mess up the results all that much is if my truck with the cruise control set for freeway speeds and no one on board were to fall off the jacks. That would transform an admittedly bizarre experiment into an epic fail, depending on what direction my particular two tons of Detroit V8 was set to hurtling with robot-like disregard for things over which we carbon units tend to obsess, such as human safety and massive destruction of property. As I think it over, Master Yoda's option of "do not" is sounding a bit more appealing. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Mar 19 04:06:00 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 00:06:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: <003401d2a026$51405e20$f3c11a60$@att.net> References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> <009b01d2a009$00e51a50$02af4ef0$@att.net> <003401d2a026$51405e20$f3c11a60$@att.net> Message-ID: Wouldn't a tire full of water be completely unlike a centrifuge? I first picture your truck "fish tale" when you stomp on the gas and the road is wet or frozen. But imagine it from the perspective of the fish. So much turbulence as the interface between the rubber and the water start generating all kinds of eddies... So now you'll have to put some baffles to keep the water in place instead of turning into a maelstrom. Yeah, this experiment is baffling enough already. They say it's easier to turn a fish tank into fish stew than the reverse of the process. I think your DIY fishrifuge is more likely the former than the latter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 19 05:24:38 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 22:24:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> <009b01d2a009$00e51a50$02af4ef0$@att.net> <003401d2a026$51405e20$f3c11a60$@att.net> Message-ID: <012201d2a071$1b6099f0$5221cdd0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 9:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Fish in space >?Wouldn't a tire full of water be completely unlike a centrifuge? ? >?So now you'll have to put some baffles to keep the water in place instead of turning into a maelstrom. Yeah, this experiment is baffling enough already. Hi Mike, Do let us consider this from the fish?s POV. During the acceleration phase there would be a radial flow of the water and turbulence, but if the tire is spinning at a constant rate, the fish eventually see the water settle down and become quiescent. I came up with still another idea which still involves trucks but I think would be safer than jacking up the back end. Consider a one-ton dually such as this sweet rig: http://calgaryherald.com/driving-ca/pickups-go-posh If one is not carrying a load, one can run a dually on a single tire per side aft. So we take a dually, remove one of the outboard tires, replace it with a smaller rim with a lower-profile tire than the inboard tire and rim. Now the load is being carried on the inboard tire on one side and the outboard tire is about 5 to 8 cm off the pavement. Truck tires have those big valves, so we could do the old remove the threaded valve stem trick as suggested earlier today, insert fish, replace valve, pump up tire, go for a ride on the freeway. The reasoning behind pumping the tire is to minimize deformation of the tire under load. Estimation: truck tire about 15 cm across, diameter about .8 m, so circumference about 2.5 m times width, about 0.4 square meters, so water depth all the way around of about 2.5 cm gives us about .01 cubic meters or about 10 liters of water, freeway speeds make about 150 g, so outward force from the water is about a 1.5 tons radial. My engineering intuition suggests a truck tire could take that load easily. We could even pump the tire with oxygen to help the fish have a better attitude toward the whole adventure. Now here?s the kinda tricky part. We want to view the fish during the experiment. I don?t know if a GoPro or equivalent can take 150 g, but my guess is that it can. We could rig up a light source and camera by drilling and tapping a mount on the rim so that we can turn on the camera from a control switch mounted on our side of the rim. OK now we put the fish in there, turn on the camera, go out on the freeway and go for a drive. At some point in the ride we get to see when the fish begin their spiral swimming dance. YouTube video gets a jillion hits, we sell advertising, we are rich and famous. Or I am. Slightly. This wouldn?t require any special equipment. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. Only more like spinning fish in a tire. Mike do you agree the turbulence of the water inside the tire would settle down once we are at steady freeway speed? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Mar 19 07:40:17 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 03:40:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: <012201d2a071$1b6099f0$5221cdd0$@att.net> References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> <005601d29ffb$8010ad70$80320850$@att.net> <009b01d2a009$00e51a50$02af4ef0$@att.net> <003401d2a026$51405e20$f3c11a60$@att.net> <012201d2a071$1b6099f0$5221cdd0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 19, 2017 1:41 AM, "spike" wrote: Mike do you agree the turbulence of the water inside the tire would settle down once we are at steady freeway speed? My intuition says no. I don't have any confidence my intuition is correct. If you had frictionless water and internal tire surface, maybe. Doesn't the difference between the inner and outer diameter cause coriolis effects in the fluid? Ok, they might not be strong enough to puree the fish... but maybe that's what caused the spiral swimming in your first experiment. If that is the confounding factor, are you next going to construct the fish version of a pilot's suit and astronaut chair? What drugs do we have too much or too little of that this is how we spend our time? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 19 14:21:17 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 07:21:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers, drude comments and... somsmo... was:RE: Fish in space Message-ID: <015701d2a0bc$136d9450$3a48bcf0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Subject: Re: [ExI] Fish in space On Mar 19, 2017 1:41 AM, "spike" > wrote: Mike do you agree the turbulence of the water inside the tire would settle down once we are at steady freeway speed? >?What drugs do we have too much or too little of that this is how we spend our time? Ummmm? This might not be a good time to mention that my first set of nanogeezers are in the mail and on their way here. {8^D A friend and former colleague made a set of 8 on a 3D printer, all of different aspect ratios, did two trials of manually rolling them and recording the results, 8 nanogeezers, 100 rolls. He commented that he found it exhausting. So I am thinking of ways to mechanize that process. Good chance I will work on that rather than the fish experiment because my son could use it for school. They don?t allow experiments on animals these days, which is probably a good thing. Nanogeezers are fair game, and it has a cool software angle: I can have him write the sim in Python while I do the 3D version. Even though I am a total drude, I might acknowledge that some drugs are fun. On the other hand, I know of no recreational drug I could ingest that can benefit arbitrary numbers of my math geek friends. In that sense, drugs mere mental masturbation. But if we do the math geek projects, anyone who wants to participate can benefit. It is more like a simultaneous online multiscreen Skype masturbatory orgy. All of this causes me to ask a Bobby Kennedy-esque question: are there already simultaneous online multiscreen Skype masturbatory orgies? Why not? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 19 21:22:07 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:22:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 10:30 AM, BillK wrote: > >> ?>? >> I'm more curious about what would happen to vertebrates and other macrobes >> ? >> under lunar or Martian gravity, simulated or actual. > > > ?> ? > I thought NASA already knew that? > ?How could NASA know that? They know that long term exposure at zero-g is harmful to humans because there is a way to test for that and they have done so, but the only way to know if living for a long time at lunar 1/6 g or at martian 1/3 g ?is harmful is to send astronauts to the Moon or Mars and have them life there for a long time. Maybe there is a threshold and if the g force is greater than that you're OK, or maybe there is a linear relationship between harm and g force all the way from zero g to 1 g. I rather doubt that last one is true because most things in the universe are not linear, > ?> ? > There is also cosmic ray damage to worry about as Mars and the Moon > has no protection. > We know more about that. As far as radiation exposure is concerned it's pretty clear there is a ? threshold ? and it's somewhere around ? 100 ? millisieverts ? (mSv) ?.? If you're below that figure the radiation has not harmed you, and as likely as not has probably improved your health more than zero milliseverts ? would have, but if you're well above that figure then you're in trouble, and unfortunately if you're in space you soon get above that figure. On the surface of the Earth you get ? about 2.4 ? mSv ? per *year* ? from normal ?? background radiation, but ? on the surface of ? the Moon ? you'd get ? 1.2 ? mSv ? per *day*, ? and on surface of Mars you'd get ? 0.7 ? mSv ? per *day* *?* . And going as fast as possible with chemical rockets a astronaut would receive 330 ? mSv ? on the journey before he even set foot on Mars ?,? ? assuming the ship had as much shielding as the ?Apollo command module. ? ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Mar 19 21:53:46 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 14:53:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 19, 2017 2:23 PM, "John Clark" wrote: They know that long term exposure at zero-g is harmful to humans because there is a way to test for that and they have done so, but the only way to know if living for a long time at lunar 1/6 g or at martian 1/3 g ?is harmful is to send astronauts to the Moon or Mars and have them life there for a long time. There are a few other ways, mostly of the form putting (human proxy) in (low G environment) for (time duration), but NASA has done none of them. As far as radiation exposure is concerned it's pretty clear there is a ? threshold ? and it's somewhere around ? 100 ? millisieverts ? (mSv) ?.? On the surface of the Earth you get ? about 2.4 ? mSv ? per *year* ? from normal ?? background radiation Is that 100 mSv over a certain duration? Otherwise, at 2.4 per year, you'd reach your lifetime cap in about 42 years - and many, many people live to well past double that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 19 22:30:55 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:30:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) Message-ID: ? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/books/review/which-dystopian-novel-got-it-right-orwells-1984-or-huxleys-brave-new-world.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=books/review&module=Ribbon&version=context®ion=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Book%20Review&pgtype=article bill w? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 00:53:32 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:53:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: ?>> ? > On the surface of the Earth you get > ? > about 2.4 > ? > mSv > ? > per *year* > ? > from normal > ?? > background radiation > > > ?> ? > Is that 100 mSv over a certain duration? > Over a lifetime. ?The survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who received more than 100 mSv were more likely to develop solid cancers than the general population of Japanese, but those who were under 100 mSv were not. Those who received a massive dose of 2000 mSv were 7.9 times as likely to get Leukemia as the general population of Japanese; If things were linear then those who received half that amount, 1000 mSv, should be be 3.95 times as likely to get that disease but instead they were only 2.1 times as likely. Strangely if they got 200 mSv they were 4% *LESS* likely and with 100 mSv they were 17% *LESS l*ikely to get Leukemia. For obvious reasons large human studies on this are rare but there are a few others. A study was done on 71,000 people who were shipyard workers between 1957 and 1981, they were divided into 3 categories, a high dose group received more than 500 mSv, a low dose group that received less than 200, and a control group of shipyard workers that didn?t work on nuclear ships and so received no excess radiation. Actuarial studies show that the high radiation group had a 25% *LOWER *death rate than the control no radiation group; the low radiation group had a bigger death rate than the high radiation group but it was still lower than the zero radiation control group of shipyard workers. In 1983 steel bars used in the construction of 180 apartment buildings in Taiwan were accidentally contaminated with Cobalt 60, it took about a decade for this to be discovered and in the meantime 10,000 people were exposed and some residents received as much as 500 mSv each year, the average was 50. In a group of people that large you?d expect that 232 would die from cancer by now if there was no Cobalt 60 in the steel, but the astonishing thing is that only 7 people died of cancer. In addition you'd expect 46 birth defects, but the actual number was 3. Also, radiologists spend their lives exposed to X rays, but they have less cancer and a lower death rate than other physicians. People who became radiologists between 1955 and 1970 had a 29% lower cancer rate and a 32% lower death rate than non-radiologist physicians. The major difference between these studies is that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki people received their millisieverts ? in a fraction of a second while the shipyard ? workers ? , Taiwan apartment dwellers, and radiologists received their ? millisieverts ? over a period of years or decades. A spaceman's exposure would be somewhere in the middle of that range. My hunch is that very short very intense exposure is more dangerous than much less intense exposure over a much longer time even if the number of millisieverts ? is the same, but it's only a hunch. ? What's clear is the radiation harm-function is far from linear. ? > ?> ? > Otherwise, at 2.4 per year, you'd reach your lifetime cap in about 42 > years - and many, many people live to well past double that. > ?Yes, and maybe that's one reason old people are more likely to die than young people, or maybe not. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 06:01:59 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 23:01:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fish in space In-Reply-To: References: <33E57D47-190C-468E-8376-06FE0B5E46C4@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, John Clark wrote: > My hunch is that very short very intense > exposure is more dangerous than much less intense exposure over a much > longer time even if the number of millisieverts > is the same, but it's only a hunch. > What's clear is the radiation harm-function is far from linear. The body has some ability to deal with malfunctions, such as cancerous cells, that could in theory be expressed in units per time, as could the damage from radiation. At very small damage rates, the amount that exceeds the body's capacity is small, perhaps zero. At high damage rates, the amount is so small that the ratio of damage inflicted to damage observed might start to seem linear. That's one hypothesis, anyway. >> Otherwise, at 2.4 per year, you'd reach your lifetime cap in about 42 >> years - and many, many people live to well past double that. > > Yes, and maybe that's one reason old people are more likely to die than > young people, or maybe not. Yes, but by that math you'd expect a dramatic increase around 42, but this is not seen until decades later. Still, that could be one selling point for a space colony with abundant radiation shielding: "More shielded than Earth = less radiation per year! Come here and live longer!" (Granted, that assumes urban-Earth-normal access to things like health care, such as 1-10 hospital beds per 1,000 people.) From giulio at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 10:26:22 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:26:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency Message-ID: I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and requests to join welcome. https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 19:46:27 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:46:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) Message-ID: https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2017/03/19/should-we-ban-ibuprofen/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=e2c0e3174f-Special_Alert_3_20_2017&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-e2c0e3174f-214968749&ct=t(Special_Alert_3_20_2017)&mc_cid=e2c0e3174f&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a i am going back to aspirin - i take naproxen and it's in the same class - nsaids bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 20 21:58:22 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 14:58:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of space startup companies all across the world, other than that you haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to focus on? "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, "and our people will sit on chairs"). And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and payback? Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular what. On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation > related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) > focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and > requests to join welcome. > > https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 11:45:21 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:45:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of the crowd. On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of > space startup companies all across the world, other than that you > haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to > focus on? > > "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than > one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab > components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one > or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - > the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which > specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, > decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has > proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, > "and our people will sit on chairs"). > > And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find > one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to > them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and > payback? > > Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if > you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that > you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's > deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude > people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then > will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular > what. > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >> requests to join welcome. >> >> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Mar 21 15:56:08 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 08:56:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. ;) Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who buy are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money seeking to make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus often at odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on whatever the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors too often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or "management" and often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them more. (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large public companies, but that's a separate topic.) This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get a majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: controlling the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public companies if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, for CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands at least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm "management" if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors without much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking their own investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least not so easily.) The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom. Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good formulas you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth $0 too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe well established stuff. On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of the crowd. On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of > space startup companies all across the world, other than that you > haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to > focus on? > > "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than > one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab > components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one > or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - > the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which > specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, > decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has > proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, > "and our people will sit on chairs"). > > And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find > one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to > them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and > payback? > > Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if > you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that > you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's > deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude > people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then > will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular > what. > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >> requests to join welcome. >> >> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous- space-agency-43232aed471c >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 giulio at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 16:22:46 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 17:22:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Adrian, re "you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth $0 too" - that should also apply to The DAO... but they raised $150 million in weeks! At the beginning, the novel participatory governance model IS the product. re "Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most corporations." - I disagree. You and I (average investors, not seriously rich) can buy shares in a public corporation, sell the shares and maybe get dividends now and then, but our decision making power is nil. In a private corporation, we can't even buy shares. In a DAO, everyone can buy shares and everyone can participate in decision making. Of course, the votes of those with many shares count more, but if you argue well you can persuade others. There's easy delegation and "liquid democracy." Also, shares could be karma-adjusted in voting (I'm thinking aloud here). re "The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom." - in other words, fascination is easy but wisdom is hard. Of course I can't disagree, but isn't this one more reason to crowdsource? If you have just one idea it's probably wrong, but among thousands of ideas there must be one that is right. The problem is finding that one, and here's where crowdsourcing helps. Wings uses an internal prediction market to evaluate proposals. Keep criticism coming! PS CubeCab is cool! http://cubecab.com/ On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. ;) > > Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most > corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who buy > are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money seeking to > make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus often at > odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on whatever > the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors too > often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day > decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or "management" and > often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the > investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them more. > (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large public > companies, but that's a separate topic.) > > This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get a > majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: controlling > the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public companies > if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, for > CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands at > least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm "management" > if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors without > much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking their own > investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least not > so easily.) > > The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in both > cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it > turns out, much actual wisdom. > > Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the > shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called > "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good formulas > you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth $0 > too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe well > established stuff. > > On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: > > Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. > The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs > entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all > shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this > model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of > the crowd. > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of >> space startup companies all across the world, other than that you >> haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to >> focus on? >> >> "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than >> one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab >> components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one >> or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - >> the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which >> specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, >> decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has >> proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, >> "and our people will sit on chairs"). >> >> And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find >> one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to >> them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and >> payback? >> >> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if >> you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that >> you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's >> deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude >> people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then >> will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular >> what. >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >>> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >>> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >>> requests to join welcome. >>> >>> >>> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 18:31:53 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:31:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The DAO was a funding agency/VC-like. It had at least celebrity status and hot buzz. Space...you'd think it has buzz, but that's nothing compared to software/virtual anything or biotech (including health care). The product was the promise of funding cryptocurrency projects. It's also been basically shut down after less than a year in existence and being hacked to drain $50M of that $150M. I assume you wish to create something to create lasting value, not merely flash-in-the-pan where you can trick people, cash out, and be done with it as those who got rich off the DAO (whether or not those were the ones who ran the Kickstarter) did. (If scamming people for a quick cash out is your goal, I decline to assist.) In a public corporation, if you or I have enough money, we can buy enough shares that we do have a say in the governance. Alternately, we can incite a shareholder revolt, by organizing and motivating people who collectively have enough shares to matter - which tends to require arguing well. Mechanisms for delegation - also known as "proxy voting" - are well established. In a DAO...same deal: only those who buy a lot of shares, or can organize a voting block among many people who collectively have enough shares, matter in practice, no matter the hype. (Karma adjustments devolve to "more votes for whoever those who write the code that hands out karma - or, worse, who manually hand out karma - agree with", effectively giving the karma-controllers more votes to delegate.) No, seriously, a DAO is basically a corporation, just one that tries to enforce its governance through computer code instead of through legal code. There are different forms of "crowdsourcing". Just lazily asking people for ideas doesn't work well. A far, far more effective version is known as "research": start with an idea, look up what people have said about that idea and similar ones (which can involve asking around but most of it doesn't: you just look up articles and studies that have already been done), refine and revise, repeat until you have a model built from solid facts - not "this is cool so people should", but solid data based on what people have done and are doing - that shows a strong likelihood of success (which usually includes a positive return on investment for whatever resources anyone chips in). Over 90% of startups fail, most often because their founders refuse to do the research before committing resources - especially other peoples' resources. In space launch specifically, the average lifespan of a startup is less than two years, before those backing the idea give up as they find it hard, or are unable to attract sufficient funding. (CubeCab's more than 2 years old, mainly because I'm a stubborn SoB...but also because I did the research and have a viable enough model to attract a bit of resources and help, not to mention lots of would-be customers though they generally won't pay anything until after we've flown something - again, because most space launch startups die without actually launching. It's a catch 22 we're working on.) If I can give you one piece of advice at this stage, it's to do the research and learn from other peoples' fails. Acknowledge that people have tried things like your idea - including the DAO itself, but far more than just the DAO. Know that, any time you think your idea is unique and special and totally unprecedented, you are wrong: there's always, always someone who's done something like yours. Your job is to find these and note how your idea is different - how they failed and you won't repeat their mistakes (or, rarely, how they succeeded in this other area and you'll repeat their success). Let's start with: the DAO itself basically folded; its administrators are now trying to get money back to those who chipped in as best they can, but it looks like less than 20% can be recovered. (Source: Wikipedia.) There are many reasons why it failed; the hack of 1/3 of their money is notable, but they forked to try to fix that - and even ignoring that, a 33% drain is less than the majority of the at least 80% loss. What are the other reasons why it lost so much money? Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost for small satellites). How is a DAO relevant to the industry given these needs? Potential answers come from the current established industries - telecommunications and earth observation - which are all about data, but saying you can take cryptocurrency experience and apply it to space, with no further elaboration, is like a Web application developer claiming that experience gives them expertise about laying cable and setting up telecommunication exchanges. (If you're familiar with the OSI model, you have experience in layers 5-7, maybe 4, and you're trying to apply it to layers 1-2.) But seriously: learn from other peoples' fails, as relevant to what you seek to do. It's what I did for years to shape CubeCab into something remotely potentially possible. (And thanks for the like.) At this point we have something where we can credibly seek funding, and we've even been invited to present at the Paris Air Show (though I don't yet know whether we will: the opportunity will cost a lot of $, and we only have so much). And especially in space, there are so many fails to learn from. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Thanks Adrian, > > re "you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are > worth $0 too" - that should also apply to The DAO... but they raised > $150 million in weeks! At the beginning, the novel participatory > governance model IS the product. > > re "Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described > most corporations." - I disagree. You and I (average investors, not > seriously rich) can buy shares in a public corporation, sell the > shares and maybe get dividends now and then, but our decision making > power is nil. In a private corporation, we can't even buy shares. In a > DAO, everyone can buy shares and everyone can participate in decision > making. Of course, the votes of those with many shares count more, but > if you argue well you can persuade others. There's easy delegation and > "liquid democracy." Also, shares could be karma-adjusted in voting > (I'm thinking aloud here). > > re "The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - > and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's > fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom." - in other > words, fascination is easy but wisdom is hard. Of course I can't > disagree, but isn't this one more reason to crowdsource? If you have > just one idea it's probably wrong, but among thousands of ideas there > must be one that is right. The problem is finding that one, and here's > where crowdsourcing helps. Wings uses an internal prediction market to > evaluate proposals. > > Keep criticism coming! > > PS CubeCab is cool! http://cubecab.com/ > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. ;) >> >> Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most >> corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who buy >> are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money seeking to >> make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus often at >> odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on whatever >> the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors too >> often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day >> decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or "management" and >> often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the >> investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them more. >> (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large public >> companies, but that's a separate topic.) >> >> This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get a >> majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: controlling >> the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public companies >> if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, for >> CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands at >> least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm "management" >> if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors without >> much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking their own >> investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least not >> so easily.) >> >> The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in both >> cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it >> turns out, much actual wisdom. >> >> Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the >> shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called >> "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good formulas >> you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth $0 >> too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe well >> established stuff. >> >> On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: >> >> Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. >> The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs >> entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all >> shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this >> model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of >> the crowd. >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of >>> space startup companies all across the world, other than that you >>> haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to >>> focus on? >>> >>> "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than >>> one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab >>> components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one >>> or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - >>> the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which >>> specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, >>> decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has >>> proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, >>> "and our people will sit on chairs"). >>> >>> And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find >>> one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to >>> them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and >>> payback? >>> >>> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if >>> you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that >>> you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's >>> deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude >>> people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then >>> will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular >>> what. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>>> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >>>> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >>>> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >>>> requests to join welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 21 19:20:19 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 12:20:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers again Message-ID: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> They're heeeeeere. The second tallest one is the height of a standard AA battery. All have the same base length one inch. Now I am rethinking my original idea for a containment device. I had imagined my former colleague would make these things with 1 cm base, but he decided bigger was better so I get these. If they hit the top or sides of the containment device too much it might mess up the readings. Suggestions welcome. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8913 bytes Desc: not available URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Mar 21 19:39:23 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:39:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Adrian, lots of food for thought here, I'll reply tomorrow. On 2017. Mar 21., Tue at 19:32, Adrian Tymes wrote: > The DAO was a funding agency/VC-like. It had at least celebrity > status and hot buzz. Space...you'd think it has buzz, but that's > nothing compared to software/virtual anything or biotech (including > health care). The product was the promise of funding cryptocurrency > projects. It's also been basically shut down after less than a year > in existence and being hacked to drain $50M of that $150M. I assume > you wish to create something to create lasting value, not merely > flash-in-the-pan where you can trick people, cash out, and be done > with it as those who got rich off the DAO (whether or not those were > the ones who ran the Kickstarter) did. (If scamming people for a > quick cash out is your goal, I decline to assist.) > > In a public corporation, if you or I have enough money, we can buy > enough shares that we do have a say in the governance. Alternately, > we can incite a shareholder revolt, by organizing and motivating > people who collectively have enough shares to matter - which tends to > require arguing well. Mechanisms for delegation - also known as > "proxy voting" - are well established. In a DAO...same deal: only > those who buy a lot of shares, or can organize a voting block among > many people who collectively have enough shares, matter in practice, > no matter the hype. (Karma adjustments devolve to "more votes for > whoever those who write the code that hands out karma - or, worse, who > manually hand out karma - agree with", effectively giving the > karma-controllers more votes to delegate.) No, seriously, a DAO is > basically a corporation, just one that tries to enforce its governance > through computer code instead of through legal code. > > There are different forms of "crowdsourcing". Just lazily asking > people for ideas doesn't work well. A far, far more effective version > is known as "research": start with an idea, look up what people have > said about that idea and similar ones (which can involve asking around > but most of it doesn't: you just look up articles and studies that > have already been done), refine and revise, repeat until you have a > model built from solid facts - not "this is cool so people should", > but solid data based on what people have done and are doing - that > shows a strong likelihood of success (which usually includes a > positive return on investment for whatever resources anyone chips in). > > Over 90% of startups fail, most often because their founders refuse to > do the research before committing resources - especially other > peoples' resources. In space launch specifically, the average > lifespan of a startup is less than two years, before those backing the > idea give up as they find it hard, or are unable to attract sufficient > funding. (CubeCab's more than 2 years old, mainly because I'm a > stubborn SoB...but also because I did the research and have a viable > enough model to attract a bit of resources and help, not to mention > lots of would-be customers though they generally won't pay anything > until after we've flown something - again, because most space launch > startups die without actually launching. It's a catch 22 we're > working on.) > > If I can give you one piece of advice at this stage, it's to do the > research and learn from other peoples' fails. Acknowledge that people > have tried things like your idea - including the DAO itself, but far > more than just the DAO. Know that, any time you think your idea is > unique and special and totally unprecedented, you are wrong: there's > always, always someone who's done something like yours. Your job is > to find these and note how your idea is different - how they failed > and you won't repeat their mistakes (or, rarely, how they succeeded in > this other area and you'll repeat their success). > > Let's start with: the DAO itself basically folded; its administrators > are now trying to get money back to those who chipped in as best they > can, but it looks like less than 20% can be recovered. (Source: > Wikipedia.) There are many reasons why it failed; the hack of 1/3 of > their money is notable, but they forked to try to fix that - and even > ignoring that, a 33% drain is less than the majority of the at least > 80% loss. What are the other reasons why it lost so much money? > > Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least > theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, > and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires > hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or > assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches > (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost > for small satellites). How is a DAO relevant to the industry given > these needs? Potential answers come from the current established > industries - telecommunications and earth observation - which are all > about data, but saying you can take cryptocurrency experience and > apply it to space, with no further elaboration, is like a Web > application developer claiming that experience gives them expertise > about laying cable and setting up telecommunication exchanges. (If > you're familiar with the OSI model, you have experience in layers 5-7, > maybe 4, and you're trying to apply it to layers 1-2.) > > But seriously: learn from other peoples' fails, as relevant to what > you seek to do. It's what I did for years to shape CubeCab into > something remotely potentially possible. (And thanks for the like.) > At this point we have something where we can credibly seek funding, > and we've even been invited to present at the Paris Air Show (though I > don't yet know whether we will: the opportunity will cost a lot of $, > and we only have so much). And especially in space, there are so many > fails to learn from. > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > Thanks Adrian, > > > > re "you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are > > worth $0 too" - that should also apply to The DAO... but they raised > > $150 million in weeks! At the beginning, the novel participatory > > governance model IS the product. > > > > re "Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described > > most corporations." - I disagree. You and I (average investors, not > > seriously rich) can buy shares in a public corporation, sell the > > shares and maybe get dividends now and then, but our decision making > > power is nil. In a private corporation, we can't even buy shares. In a > > DAO, everyone can buy shares and everyone can participate in decision > > making. Of course, the votes of those with many shares count more, but > > if you argue well you can persuade others. There's easy delegation and > > "liquid democracy." Also, shares could be karma-adjusted in voting > > (I'm thinking aloud here). > > > > re "The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - > > and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's > > fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom." - in other > > words, fascination is easy but wisdom is hard. Of course I can't > > disagree, but isn't this one more reason to crowdsource? If you have > > just one idea it's probably wrong, but among thousands of ideas there > > must be one that is right. The problem is finding that one, and here's > > where crowdsourcing helps. Wings uses an internal prediction market to > > evaluate proposals. > > > > Keep criticism coming! > > > > PS CubeCab is cool! http://cubecab.com/ > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. > ;) > >> > >> Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most > >> corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who > buy > >> are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money > seeking to > >> make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus > often at > >> odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on > whatever > >> the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors > too > >> often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day > >> decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or > "management" and > >> often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the > >> investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them > more. > >> (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large > public > >> companies, but that's a separate topic.) > >> > >> This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get > a > >> majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: > controlling > >> the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public > companies > >> if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, > for > >> CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands > at > >> least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm > "management" > >> if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors > without > >> much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking > their own > >> investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least > not > >> so easily.) > >> > >> The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in > both > >> cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, > it > >> turns out, much actual wisdom. > >> > >> Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the > >> shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called > >> "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good > formulas > >> you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth > $0 > >> too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe > well > >> established stuff. > >> > >> On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. > >> The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs > >> entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all > >> shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this > >> model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of > >> the crowd. > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes > wrote: > >>> How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of > >>> space startup companies all across the world, other than that you > >>> haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to > >>> focus on? > >>> > >>> "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than > >>> one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab > >>> components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one > >>> or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - > >>> the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which > >>> specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, > >>> decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has > >>> proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, > >>> "and our people will sit on chairs"). > >>> > >>> And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find > >>> one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to > >>> them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and > >>> payback? > >>> > >>> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if > >>> you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that > >>> you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's > >>> deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude > >>> people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then > >>> will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular > >>> what. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco > wrote: > >>>> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation > >>>> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) > >>>> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and > >>>> requests to join welcome. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> extropy-chat mailing list > >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> extropy-chat mailing list > >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 msd001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 02:29:30 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:29:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers again In-Reply-To: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> References: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2017 3:36 PM, "spike" wrote: They?re heeeeeere? The second tallest one is the height of a standard AA battery. All have the same base length one inch. Now I am rethinking my original idea for a containment device. I had imagined my former colleague would make these things with 1 cm base, but he decided bigger was better so I get these. If they hit the top or sides of the containment device too much it might mess up the readings. Suggestions welcome. I'm no engineer, but for a 'containment device' have you considered "a box"? Perhaps this was your original idea for a containment device, in which case I suggest "a larger box" ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 22 02:51:51 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 19:51:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers again In-Reply-To: References: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00a701d2a2b7$42da3fc0$c88ebf40$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 7:30 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] nanogeezers again On Mar 21, 2017 3:36 PM, "spike" > wrote: They?re heeeeeere? The second tallest one is the height of a standard AA battery. All have the same base length one inch. Now I am rethinking my original idea for a containment device? >?I'm no engineer, but for a 'containment device' have you considered "a box"? Ja, the idea was to create a compartmented clear plastic container with one nanogeezer in each compartment, then create a mechanism which would shake vigorously, stop, take a photo from the underside of the container, write software to decide if it is seeing a square or a triangle, let it run for a few days, get perhaps a few tens of thousands of trials. I thought of an alternative which does not require me to master image recognition software but it is so low tech it embarrasses me. I run the device with an ordinary digital video camera, post the video to any public site, ask volunteers to take a segment of video, record start time and end time, do the identification of each compartment as square or triangle the old-fashioned way with those two bio-cameras in the head of the carbon-unit volunteer. So low-tech is this. But it has its advantages, such as? ?such as we can be the very first lifeforms in the history of life on this planet to know the answer to the burning question: what is the aspect ratio necessary to make a nanogeezer land on its square base 20% of the time? Philosophers have puzzled over this for millennia. The fate of the free world hangs in the balance. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulioprisco at protonmail.ch Wed Mar 22 06:57:05 2017 From: giulioprisco at protonmail.ch (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:57:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Test from this address to check if a problem with protonmail headers is solved. -- Giulio Prisco http://giulioprisco.com/ giulioprisco at protonmail.ch -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency Local Time: March 21, 2017 8:39 PM UTC Time: March 21, 2017 7:39 PM From: giulio at gmail.com To: ExI chat list Thanks Adrian, lots of food for thought here, I'll reply tomorrow. On 2017. Mar 21., Tue at 19:32, Adrian Tymes wrote: The DAO was a funding agency/VC-like. It had at least celebrity status and hot buzz. Space...you'd think it has buzz, but that's nothing compared to software/virtual anything or biotech (including health care). The product was the promise of funding cryptocurrency projects. It's also been basically shut down after less than a year in existence and being hacked to drain $50M of that $150M. I assume you wish to create something to create lasting value, not merely flash-in-the-pan where you can trick people, cash out, and be done with it as those who got rich off the DAO (whether or not those were the ones who ran the Kickstarter) did. (If scamming people for a quick cash out is your goal, I decline to assist.) In a public corporation, if you or I have enough money, we can buy enough shares that we do have a say in the governance. Alternately, we can incite a shareholder revolt, by organizing and motivating people who collectively have enough shares to matter - which tends to require arguing well. Mechanisms for delegation - also known as "proxy voting" - are well established. In a DAO...same deal: only those who buy a lot of shares, or can organize a voting block among many people who collectively have enough shares, matter in practice, no matter the hype. (Karma adjustments devolve to "more votes for whoever those who write the code that hands out karma - or, worse, who manually hand out karma - agree with", effectively giving the karma-controllers more votes to delegate.) No, seriously, a DAO is basically a corporation, just one that tries to enforce its governance through computer code instead of through legal code. There are different forms of "crowdsourcing". Just lazily asking people for ideas doesn't work well. A far, far more effective version is known as "research": start with an idea, look up what people have said about that idea and similar ones (which can involve asking around but most of it doesn't: you just look up articles and studies that have already been done), refine and revise, repeat until you have a model built from solid facts - not "this is cool so people should", but solid data based on what people have done and are doing - that shows a strong likelihood of success (which usually includes a positive return on investment for whatever resources anyone chips in). Over 90% of startups fail, most often because their founders refuse to do the research before committing resources - especially other peoples' resources. In space launch specifically, the average lifespan of a startup is less than two years, before those backing the idea give up as they find it hard, or are unable to attract sufficient funding. (CubeCab's more than 2 years old, mainly because I'm a stubborn SoB...but also because I did the research and have a viable enough model to attract a bit of resources and help, not to mention lots of would-be customers though they generally won't pay anything until after we've flown something - again, because most space launch startups die without actually launching. It's a catch 22 we're working on.) If I can give you one piece of advice at this stage, it's to do the research and learn from other peoples' fails. Acknowledge that people have tried things like your idea - including the DAO itself, but far more than just the DAO. Know that, any time you think your idea is unique and special and totally unprecedented, you are wrong: there's always, always someone who's done something like yours. Your job is to find these and note how your idea is different - how they failed and you won't repeat their mistakes (or, rarely, how they succeeded in this other area and you'll repeat their success). Let's start with: the DAO itself basically folded; its administrators are now trying to get money back to those who chipped in as best they can, but it looks like less than 20% can be recovered. (Source: Wikipedia.) There are many reasons why it failed; the hack of 1/3 of their money is notable, but they forked to try to fix that - and even ignoring that, a 33% drain is less than the majority of the at least 80% loss. What are the other reasons why it lost so much money? Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost for small satellites). How is a DAO relevant to the industry given these needs? Potential answers come from the current established industries - telecommunications and earth observation - which are all about data, but saying you can take cryptocurrency experience and apply it to space, with no further elaboration, is like a Web application developer claiming that experience gives them expertise about laying cable and setting up telecommunication exchanges. (If you're familiar with the OSI model, you have experience in layers 5-7, maybe 4, and you're trying to apply it to layers 1-2.) But seriously: learn from other peoples' fails, as relevant to what you seek to do. It's what I did for years to shape CubeCab into something remotely potentially possible. (And thanks for the like.) At this point we have something where we can credibly seek funding, and we've even been invited to present at the Paris Air Show (though I don't yet know whether we will: the opportunity will cost a lot of $, and we only have so much). And especially in space, there are so many fails to learn from. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Thanks Adrian, > > re "you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are > worth $0 too" - that should also apply to The DAO... but they raised > $150 million in weeks! At the beginning, the novel participatory > governance model IS the product. > > re "Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described > most corporations." - I disagree. You and I (average investors, not > seriously rich) can buy shares in a public corporation, sell the > shares and maybe get dividends now and then, but our decision making > power is nil. In a private corporation, we can't even buy shares. In a > DAO, everyone can buy shares and everyone can participate in decision > making. Of course, the votes of those with many shares count more, but > if you argue well you can persuade others. There's easy delegation and > "liquid democracy." Also, shares could be karma-adjusted in voting > (I'm thinking aloud here). > > re "The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - > and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's > fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom." - in other > words, fascination is easy but wisdom is hard. Of course I can't > disagree, but isn't this one more reason to crowdsource? If you have > just one idea it's probably wrong, but among thousands of ideas there > must be one that is right. The problem is finding that one, and here's > where crowdsourcing helps. Wings uses an internal prediction market to > evaluate proposals. > > Keep criticism coming! > > PS CubeCab is cool! http://cubecab.com/ > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. ;) >> >> Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most >> corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who buy >> are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money seeking to >> make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus often at >> odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on whatever >> the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors too >> often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day >> decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or "management" and >> often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the >> investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them more. >> (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large public >> companies, but that's a separate topic.) >> >> This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get a >> majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: controlling >> the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public companies >> if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, for >> CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands at >> least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm "management" >> if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors without >> much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking their own >> investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least not >> so easily.) >> >> The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in both >> cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it >> turns out, much actual wisdom. >> >> Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the >> shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called >> "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good formulas >> you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth $0 >> too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe well >> established stuff. >> >> On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: >> >> Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. >> The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs >> entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all >> shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this >> model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of >> the crowd. >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of >>> space startup companies all across the world, other than that you >>> haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to >>> focus on? >>> >>> "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than >>> one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab >>> components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one >>> or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - >>> the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which >>> specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, >>> decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has >>> proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, >>> "and our people will sit on chairs"). >>> >>> And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find >>> one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to >>> them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and >>> payback? >>> >>> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if >>> you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that >>> you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's >>> deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude >>> people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then >>> will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular >>> what. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>>> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >>>> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >>>> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >>>> requests to join welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 giulioprisco at protonmail.ch Wed Mar 22 07:28:26 2017 From: giulioprisco at protonmail.ch (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:28:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow it works now! There used to be a problem with headers that caused messages sent from Protonmail to the list to end up in the spam folder. I see they have solved it. -- Giulio Prisco [https://giulioprisco.com/](http://giulioprisco.com/) giulioprisco at protonmail.ch -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency Local Time: March 22, 2017 7:57 AM UTC Time: March 22, 2017 6:57 AM From: giulioprisco at protonmail.ch To: ExI chat list Test from this address to check if a problem with protonmail headers is solved. -- Giulio Prisco http://giulioprisco.com/ giulioprisco at protonmail.ch -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency Local Time: March 21, 2017 8:39 PM UTC Time: March 21, 2017 7:39 PM From: giulio at gmail.com To: ExI chat list Thanks Adrian, lots of food for thought here, I'll reply tomorrow. On 2017. Mar 21., Tue at 19:32, Adrian Tymes wrote: The DAO was a funding agency/VC-like. It had at least celebrity status and hot buzz. Space...you'd think it has buzz, but that's nothing compared to software/virtual anything or biotech (including health care). The product was the promise of funding cryptocurrency projects. It's also been basically shut down after less than a year in existence and being hacked to drain $50M of that $150M. I assume you wish to create something to create lasting value, not merely flash-in-the-pan where you can trick people, cash out, and be done with it as those who got rich off the DAO (whether or not those were the ones who ran the Kickstarter) did. (If scamming people for a quick cash out is your goal, I decline to assist.) In a public corporation, if you or I have enough money, we can buy enough shares that we do have a say in the governance. Alternately, we can incite a shareholder revolt, by organizing and motivating people who collectively have enough shares to matter - which tends to require arguing well. Mechanisms for delegation - also known as "proxy voting" - are well established. In a DAO...same deal: only those who buy a lot of shares, or can organize a voting block among many people who collectively have enough shares, matter in practice, no matter the hype. (Karma adjustments devolve to "more votes for whoever those who write the code that hands out karma - or, worse, who manually hand out karma - agree with", effectively giving the karma-controllers more votes to delegate.) No, seriously, a DAO is basically a corporation, just one that tries to enforce its governance through computer code instead of through legal code. There are different forms of "crowdsourcing". Just lazily asking people for ideas doesn't work well. A far, far more effective version is known as "research": start with an idea, look up what people have said about that idea and similar ones (which can involve asking around but most of it doesn't: you just look up articles and studies that have already been done), refine and revise, repeat until you have a model built from solid facts - not "this is cool so people should", but solid data based on what people have done and are doing - that shows a strong likelihood of success (which usually includes a positive return on investment for whatever resources anyone chips in). Over 90% of startups fail, most often because their founders refuse to do the research before committing resources - especially other peoples' resources. In space launch specifically, the average lifespan of a startup is less than two years, before those backing the idea give up as they find it hard, or are unable to attract sufficient funding. (CubeCab's more than 2 years old, mainly because I'm a stubborn SoB...but also because I did the research and have a viable enough model to attract a bit of resources and help, not to mention lots of would-be customers though they generally won't pay anything until after we've flown something - again, because most space launch startups die without actually launching. It's a catch 22 we're working on.) If I can give you one piece of advice at this stage, it's to do the research and learn from other peoples' fails. Acknowledge that people have tried things like your idea - including the DAO itself, but far more than just the DAO. Know that, any time you think your idea is unique and special and totally unprecedented, you are wrong: there's always, always someone who's done something like yours. Your job is to find these and note how your idea is different - how they failed and you won't repeat their mistakes (or, rarely, how they succeeded in this other area and you'll repeat their success). Let's start with: the DAO itself basically folded; its administrators are now trying to get money back to those who chipped in as best they can, but it looks like less than 20% can be recovered. (Source: Wikipedia.) There are many reasons why it failed; the hack of 1/3 of their money is notable, but they forked to try to fix that - and even ignoring that, a 33% drain is less than the majority of the at least 80% loss. What are the other reasons why it lost so much money? Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost for small satellites). How is a DAO relevant to the industry given these needs? Potential answers come from the current established industries - telecommunications and earth observation - which are all about data, but saying you can take cryptocurrency experience and apply it to space, with no further elaboration, is like a Web application developer claiming that experience gives them expertise about laying cable and setting up telecommunication exchanges. (If you're familiar with the OSI model, you have experience in layers 5-7, maybe 4, and you're trying to apply it to layers 1-2.) But seriously: learn from other peoples' fails, as relevant to what you seek to do. It's what I did for years to shape CubeCab into something remotely potentially possible. (And thanks for the like.) At this point we have something where we can credibly seek funding, and we've even been invited to present at the Paris Air Show (though I don't yet know whether we will: the opportunity will cost a lot of $, and we only have so much). And especially in space, there are so many fails to learn from. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Thanks Adrian, > > re "you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are > worth $0 too" - that should also apply to The DAO... but they raised > $150 million in weeks! At the beginning, the novel participatory > governance model IS the product. > > re "Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described > most corporations." - I disagree. You and I (average investors, not > seriously rich) can buy shares in a public corporation, sell the > shares and maybe get dividends now and then, but our decision making > power is nil. In a private corporation, we can't even buy shares. In a > DAO, everyone can buy shares and everyone can participate in decision > making. Of course, the votes of those with many shares count more, but > if you argue well you can persuade others. There's easy delegation and > "liquid democracy." Also, shares could be karma-adjusted in voting > (I'm thinking aloud here). > > re "The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - > and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's > fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom." - in other > words, fascination is easy but wisdom is hard. Of course I can't > disagree, but isn't this one more reason to crowdsource? If you have > just one idea it's probably wrong, but among thousands of ideas there > must be one that is right. The problem is finding that one, and here's > where crowdsourcing helps. Wings uses an internal prediction market to > evaluate proposals. > > Keep criticism coming! > > PS CubeCab is cool! http://cubecab.com/ > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. ;) >> >> Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most >> corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who buy >> are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money seeking to >> make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus often at >> odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on whatever >> the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors too >> often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day >> decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or "management" and >> often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the >> investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them more. >> (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large public >> companies, but that's a separate topic.) >> >> This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get a >> majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: controlling >> the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public companies >> if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, for >> CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands at >> least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm "management" >> if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors without >> much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking their own >> investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least not >> so easily.) >> >> The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in both >> cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it >> turns out, much actual wisdom. >> >> Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the >> shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called >> "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good formulas >> you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth $0 >> too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe well >> established stuff. >> >> On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: >> >> Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. >> The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs >> entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all >> shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this >> model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of >> the crowd. >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of >>> space startup companies all across the world, other than that you >>> haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to >>> focus on? >>> >>> "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than >>> one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab >>> components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one >>> or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - >>> the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which >>> specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, >>> decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has >>> proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, >>> "and our people will sit on chairs"). >>> >>> And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find >>> one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to >>> them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and >>> payback? >>> >>> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if >>> you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that >>> you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's >>> deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude >>> people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then >>> will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular >>> what. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>>> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >>>> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >>>> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >>>> requests to join welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Mar 22 09:21:23 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:21:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever > that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the > substituted part is behaviorally identical. "Behaviorally identical" means > that it interacts with its neighbors in the same way - nothing else. > Well, there you have it. I'm guessing that you still can't see how this is what I've been trying to say all along. You must include this comparison behavior when you do any type of neural substitution correctly. Not preserving this functionality in your theory is what makes it fallacious. Can you not see that up until now, you've always nuro substituted out any theory I provided that included this ability? You always twisted any theoretical system I was proposing, that preserves this ability to compare during the neuro substitution, in a way that always completely removed this comparison ability. Go ahead, propose any qualitative theory that preserves this, then try a nuro substitution with it. If you provide a qualitative theory that include the necessary ability to compare red and green in your neuro substitutuion, you will be able to do a neural substitution from redness/greenness to purpleness/yellowness, in a way that both of them will behave the same honestly and accurately saying: "I know what red and green are like". You will be able to do this again, to blackness and whiteness. And again to oneness and zeroness. All of them still correctly proclaiming: "I know what red and green is like for me." But, the only way to keep them "Behaviorally identical" is to keep each of these neural substituted conscious entities qualia blind and qualitatively isolated from each other - the way all of you still are. If you do the neural substitution in any way, such that the qualitative isolation is not preserved, the behavior will not be different saying things like: redness and greenness sure are different than purpleness and yellowness. For example, you could add a qualitative memory system, so that the being could remember and compare what redness and greenness was like, before the qualitative substitution. It is also important to remember, that we are talking about a simple 2 qualitative pixel element comparison system. It's easy to preserve isolation with such a simple system, especially when you have a system your are substituting that only interacts with a few of it's neighbors. If you have a qualitative system like we have, where you can compare any of the tens of thousands of qualitative pixel or voxel element with all of the others at the same time, preserving the isolation is much more difficult, but not impossible. All of the tens of thousands of voxel elements must interact with all the others in some comparison enabling way - allowing the qualitative comparison of them all at the same time There is a scene in the British TV series "Humans" season 2 where one of the "Synths" that has become "conscious" recollects that life was very different before he become "conscious". Once we are no longer qualia blind, we'll all demand that our TV shows be much less qualia blind, having them say things more like like: "My oneness and zeroness representations of red and green were sure qualitatively less than my new redness and greenness representations. At least in Humans, you can see this qualitative recognition they have, on their faces, when they become conscious, and they walk outside for the first time. If they were "behaving the same", they wouldn't have that astonished look on their face, after they walk outside, once they become qualitatively "conscious." Brent Allsop -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 12:12:06 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:12:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed., 22 Mar. 2017 at 8:22 pm, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever > that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the > substituted part is behaviorally identical. "Behaviorally identical" means > that it interacts with its neighbors in the same way - nothing else. > > > Well, there you have it. I'm guessing that you still can't see how this > is what I've been trying to say all along. You must include this > comparison behavior when you do any type of neural substitution correctly. > Not preserving this functionality in your theory is what makes it > fallacious. Can you not see that up until now, you've always nuro > substituted out any theory I provided that included this ability? You > always twisted any theoretical system I was proposing, that preserves this > ability to compare during the neuro substitution, in a way that always > completely removed this comparison ability. Go ahead, propose any > qualitative theory that preserves this, then try a nuro substitution with > it. > > If you provide a qualitative theory that include the necessary ability to > compare red and green in your neuro substitutuion, you will be able to do a > neural substitution from redness/greenness to purpleness/yellowness, in a > way that both of them will behave the same honestly and accurately saying: > "I know what red and green are like". You will be able to do this again, > to blackness and whiteness. And again to oneness and zeroness. All of > them still correctly proclaiming: "I know what red and green is like for > me." > > But, the only way to keep them "Behaviorally identical" is to keep each of > these neural substituted conscious entities qualia blind and qualitatively > isolated from each other - the way all of you still are. If you do the > neural substitution in any way, such that the qualitative isolation is not > preserved, the behavior will not be different saying things like: redness > and greenness sure are different than purpleness and yellowness. For > example, you could add a qualitative memory system, so that the being could > remember and compare what redness and greenness was like, before the > qualitative substitution. > > It is also important to remember, that we are talking about a simple 2 > qualitative pixel element comparison system. It's easy to preserve > isolation with such a simple system, especially when you have a system your > are substituting that only interacts with a few of it's neighbors. If you > have a qualitative system like we have, where you can compare any of the > tens of thousands of qualitative pixel or voxel element with all of the > others at the same time, preserving the isolation is much more difficult, > but not impossible. All of the tens of thousands of voxel elements must > interact with all the others in some comparison enabling way - allowing the > qualitative comparison of them all at the same time > > There is a scene in the British TV series "Humans" season 2 where one of > the "Synths" that has become "conscious" recollects that life was very > different before he become "conscious". Once we are no longer qualia > blind, we'll all demand that our TV shows be much less qualia blind, having > them say things more like like: "My oneness and zeroness representations of > red and green were sure qualitatively less than my new redness and > greenness representations. At least in Humans, you can see this > qualitative recognition they have, on their faces, when they become > conscious, and they walk outside for the first time. If they were > "behaving the same", they wouldn't have that astonished look on their face, > after they walk outside, once they become qualitatively "conscious." > So, do you agree that if the substituted component interacts with its neighbours normally then the whole system will be able to distinguish red from green and normally? Or can you imagine a situation where the substituted component interacts with its neighbours normally but the system does *not* behave normally? If the latter, please explain, preferably with an example not related to consciousness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 13:28:34 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:28:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers again In-Reply-To: <00a701d2a2b7$42da3fc0$c88ebf40$@att.net> References: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> <00a701d2a2b7$42da3fc0$c88ebf40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:51 PM, spike wrote: > Ja, the idea was to create a compartmented clear plastic container with > one nanogeezer in each compartment, then create a mechanism which would > shake vigorously, stop, take a photo from the underside of the container, > write software to decide if it is seeing a square or a triangle, let it run > for a few days, get perhaps a few tens of thousands of trials. > > > > I thought of an alternative which does not require me to master image > recognition software but it is so low tech it embarrasses me. I run the > device with an ordinary digital video camera, post the video to any public > site, ask volunteers to take a segment of video, record start time and end > time, do the identification of each compartment as square or triangle the > old-fashioned way with those two bio-cameras in the head of the carbon-unit > volunteer. So low-tech is this. But it has its advantages, such as? > > > > ?such as we can be the very first lifeforms in the history of life on this > planet to know the answer to the burning question: what is the aspect ratio > necessary to make a nanogeezer land on its square base 20% of the time? > Philosophers have puzzled over this for millennia. The fate of the free > world hangs in the balance. > > > oh, now with the refreshed context the problem makes some more sense That battery for size comparison makes me think a box about the size of a baseball might be ideal. I know sports memorabilia stores have clear keeper boxes for baseball (and softball size?) However, now you're introducing a new parameter to this puzzle: the ratio of volume of nanogeezer to container. That wasn't a concern in the original unbounded "space" problem. Imagine a crude surrogate for the nanogeezer: an ordinary cubic die. The probability of a fair toss landing with any particular surface face up is 1/6. Once you put the die inside an acrylic cube of sufficiently small proportion that the cube has no axis of freedom to turn, you've grossly affected that probability. There is an ideal volume at which it is exactly possible for the vertices of the die to touch the midplane of each face of the container. There is a technical opportunity for that freedom to manifest an actual change in orientation, but the constraint is such that there is only the smallest likelihood that random shaking of the container would ever orient the cubes in the magic moment. So now we're talking about the ideal ratio of cubic (or otherwise?) container to nanogeezer of any particular dimension... and material... and ??? I think i've lost scope of what it was we were looking for in the first place. I'm having a good time free thinking on it, but I'm not sure where the goal is anymore. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 13:51:16 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:51:16 +0000 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers again In-Reply-To: References: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> <00a701d2a2b7$42da3fc0$c88ebf40$@att.net> Message-ID: On 22 March 2017 at 13:28, Mike Dougherty wrote: > That battery for size comparison makes me think a box about the size of a > baseball might be ideal. I know sports memorabilia stores have clear keeper > boxes for baseball (and softball size?) However, now you're introducing a > new parameter to this puzzle: the ratio of volume of nanogeezer to > container. That wasn't a concern in the original unbounded "space" problem. > > Imagine a crude surrogate for the nanogeezer: an ordinary cubic die. The > probability of a fair toss landing with any particular surface face up is > 1/6. Once you put the die inside an acrylic cube of sufficiently small > proportion that the cube has no axis of freedom to turn, you've grossly > affected that probability. There is an ideal volume at which it is exactly > possible for the vertices of the die to touch the midplane of each face of > the container. There is a technical opportunity for that freedom to > manifest an actual change in orientation, but the constraint is such that > there is only the smallest likelihood that random shaking of the container > would ever orient the cubes in the magic moment. > > So now we're talking about the ideal ratio of cubic (or otherwise?) > container to nanogeezer of any particular dimension... and material... and > ??? > > I think i've lost scope of what it was we were looking for in the first > place. I'm having a good time free thinking on it, but I'm not sure where > the goal is anymore. > Wouldn't a clear spherical container be more random? Like the lottery machines, BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 14:01:01 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:01:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers again In-Reply-To: References: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> <00a701d2a2b7$42da3fc0$c88ebf40$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:51 AM, BillK wrote: > > Wouldn't a clear spherical container be more random? Like the lottery > machines, > > It would be more uniform in bounce surface geometry, for sure. "More random" is an interesting phrase... like "more perfect" i'm not sure you can have more or less of a pure state. The inside of a sphere might be ideal for the shuffling phase of randomly orienting the nanogeezer, but I think the curvature will greatly influence the landing phase. There might be a reason philosophers have pondered this ratio for millenia. Perhaps we should instead build then ask recursively improving artificial intelligence to solve this one? :p -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 15:02:18 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:02:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump's budget Message-ID: Trump proposes we spend 54 billion dollars more on the military next year and to get the money to do that he recommends we slash spending in other areas, scientific research for example. Trump wants to cut funding for space exploration, environmental protection, the energy department, and perhaps most important of all fundamental biological research; he wants to cut the budget of the National Institute of Health by 18.3%, that's 5.8 billion dollars. Oh well, cancer may get us but at least we'll be safe from the horrors of Hillary's dreadful Email server. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 16:32:06 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:32:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > Well, there you have it. I'm guessing that you still can't see how this > is what I've been trying to say all along. You must include this > comparison behavior when you do any type of neural substitution correctly. > ?Am I correct in saying you are arguing if the internal operation of a neuron has changed then that counts as a change in behavior even if the neuron as a whole behaves the same way with other external neurons, and even if the person as a whole behaves the same way with other external people?? ?I sometimes have trouble following you so I don't want to say more about that until I get confirmation ?that is indeed what you are saying. ?> ? > If you provide a qualitative theory that > ? [...]? > ?No ? qualitative theory ? of the mind can ever be proven wrong, so no ? qualitative theory ? of the mind can ever be worth more than a bucket of warm spit. > ?> ? > You will be able to do this again, to blackness and whiteness. And again > to oneness and zeroness. All of them still correctly proclaiming: "I know > what red and green is like for me." > ?I don't need to trust it or for it to say anything, if a machine can correctly tell me if there is one marble in a tray or zero marbles in a tray, and sort black marbles from white marbles, and sort red marbles from green marbles, then I must conclude it knows what zero and one is, what white and black is, and what red and green is as well as you do because I've seen both of you pass those tests. Of course I will never prove for certain that either of you are conscious of one or zero or experience color qualia as I do, so I must just learn to live with some slight uncertainty in my life. I think I can do that because the uncertainty is pretty slight. > ?> ? > the only way to keep them "Behaviorally identical" is to keep each of > these neural substituted conscious entities qualia blind and > ?There is no way, absolutely positively no? ?way, to directly test for qualia or consciousness in other people ?and there never will be, so any theory that uses those words is no more a scientific theory than speculating on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ?> ? > There is a scene in the British TV series "Humans" season 2 where one of > the "Synths" that has become "conscious" recollects that life was very > different before he become "conscious". > ?I'm not a Synths but it's exactly the same with me. I was not conscious in 1492 but I was in 2002, so my life in 2002 was very different from my life in 1492, and my memory of Christopher Columbus is qualitatively ?different from my life and memory of George W Bush. > ?> ? > If they were "behaving the same", they wouldn't have that astonished look > on their face, after they walk outside, once they become qualitatively > "conscious." > ?Use yourself as a test vehicle, 13.8 billion years went by when you were not conscious, don't you find that vast stretch of time astonishingly different than the last few decades when you were conscious? I certainly do, proving to my satisfaction that there is indeed a difference between consciousness and non-consciousness. Or at least it is for me. John K Clark ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulioprisco at protonmail.ch Wed Mar 22 16:52:42 2017 From: giulioprisco at protonmail.ch (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:52:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Don't worry Adrian, that - doing all the needed research and then some, and learning from others' mistakes - is exactly what I want to do. I started a working group for this project because I think the idea is cool and worth doing, but I still have many questions and not enough solid answers. I started this conversation to refine my initial ideas, and I especially value the advise of those who have been at the school of hard knocks (I have been there too). Besides the need for watertight security and the other points you raise, I find this point especially critical: Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost for small satellites). In fact, it's much easier to apply the DAO model to projects related to cryptocurrency itself, not only because there is no hardware to build or ship back and forth, but also because most internal and external payments are in the DAO's native cryptocurrency. In the real world things are not so simple. For example, if a DAO project wants to launch a cubesat with CubeCab, I doubt you would accept a payment in whatever the DAO's native cryptocurrency is, so there should be a mechanism to convert crypto to dollars and pay you. That could be done with smart contracts. There is a lot of initial work to do to adapt the DAO concept to real world projects. Unrelated note: I am sending this from Protonmail but Gmail is much faster and easier to use, so I think I'll go back to Gmail. Google has the money to develop great services, and it's difficult to develop great services without Google's money - then, perhaps, this IS related to the topic... -- Giulio Prisco https://giulioprisco.com/ giulioprisco at protonmail.ch -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency Local Time: March 21, 2017 7:31 PM UTC Time: March 21, 2017 6:31 PM From: atymes at gmail.com To: ExI chat list The DAO was a funding agency/VC-like. It had at least celebrity status and hot buzz. Space...you'd think it has buzz, but that's nothing compared to software/virtual anything or biotech (including health care). The product was the promise of funding cryptocurrency projects. It's also been basically shut down after less than a year in existence and being hacked to drain $50M of that $150M. I assume you wish to create something to create lasting value, not merely flash-in-the-pan where you can trick people, cash out, and be done with it as those who got rich off the DAO (whether or not those were the ones who ran the Kickstarter) did. (If scamming people for a quick cash out is your goal, I decline to assist.) In a public corporation, if you or I have enough money, we can buy enough shares that we do have a say in the governance. Alternately, we can incite a shareholder revolt, by organizing and motivating people who collectively have enough shares to matter - which tends to require arguing well. Mechanisms for delegation - also known as "proxy voting" - are well established. In a DAO...same deal: only those who buy a lot of shares, or can organize a voting block among many people who collectively have enough shares, matter in practice, no matter the hype. (Karma adjustments devolve to "more votes for whoever those who write the code that hands out karma - or, worse, who manually hand out karma - agree with", effectively giving the karma-controllers more votes to delegate.) No, seriously, a DAO is basically a corporation, just one that tries to enforce its governance through computer code instead of through legal code. There are different forms of "crowdsourcing". Just lazily asking people for ideas doesn't work well. A far, far more effective version is known as "research": start with an idea, look up what people have said about that idea and similar ones (which can involve asking around but most of it doesn't: you just look up articles and studies that have already been done), refine and revise, repeat until you have a model built from solid facts - not "this is cool so people should", but solid data based on what people have done and are doing - that shows a strong likelihood of success (which usually includes a positive return on investment for whatever resources anyone chips in). Over 90% of startups fail, most often because their founders refuse to do the research before committing resources - especially other peoples' resources. In space launch specifically, the average lifespan of a startup is less than two years, before those backing the idea give up as they find it hard, or are unable to attract sufficient funding. (CubeCab's more than 2 years old, mainly because I'm a stubborn SoB...but also because I did the research and have a viable enough model to attract a bit of resources and help, not to mention lots of would-be customers though they generally won't pay anything until after we've flown something - again, because most space launch startups die without actually launching. It's a catch 22 we're working on.) If I can give you one piece of advice at this stage, it's to do the research and learn from other peoples' fails. Acknowledge that people have tried things like your idea - including the DAO itself, but far more than just the DAO. Know that, any time you think your idea is unique and special and totally unprecedented, you are wrong: there's always, always someone who's done something like yours. Your job is to find these and note how your idea is different - how they failed and you won't repeat their mistakes (or, rarely, how they succeeded in this other area and you'll repeat their success). Let's start with: the DAO itself basically folded; its administrators are now trying to get money back to those who chipped in as best they can, but it looks like less than 20% can be recovered. (Source: Wikipedia.) There are many reasons why it failed; the hack of 1/3 of their money is notable, but they forked to try to fix that - and even ignoring that, a 33% drain is less than the majority of the at least 80% loss. What are the other reasons why it lost so much money? Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost for small satellites). How is a DAO relevant to the industry given these needs? Potential answers come from the current established industries - telecommunications and earth observation - which are all about data, but saying you can take cryptocurrency experience and apply it to space, with no further elaboration, is like a Web application developer claiming that experience gives them expertise about laying cable and setting up telecommunication exchanges. (If you're familiar with the OSI model, you have experience in layers 5-7, maybe 4, and you're trying to apply it to layers 1-2.) But seriously: learn from other peoples' fails, as relevant to what you seek to do. It's what I did for years to shape CubeCab into something remotely potentially possible. (And thanks for the like.) At this point we have something where we can credibly seek funding, and we've even been invited to present at the Paris Air Show (though I don't yet know whether we will: the opportunity will cost a lot of $, and we only have so much). And especially in space, there are so many fails to learn from. On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Thanks Adrian, > > re "you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are > worth $0 too" - that should also apply to The DAO... but they raised > $150 million in weeks! At the beginning, the novel participatory > governance model IS the product. > > re "Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described > most corporations." - I disagree. You and I (average investors, not > seriously rich) can buy shares in a public corporation, sell the > shares and maybe get dividends now and then, but our decision making > power is nil. In a private corporation, we can't even buy shares. In a > DAO, everyone can buy shares and everyone can participate in decision > making. Of course, the votes of those with many shares count more, but > if you argue well you can persuade others. There's easy delegation and > "liquid democracy." Also, shares could be karma-adjusted in voting > (I'm thinking aloud here). > > re "The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - > and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's > fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom." - in other > words, fascination is easy but wisdom is hard. Of course I can't > disagree, but isn't this one more reason to crowdsource? If you have > just one idea it's probably wrong, but among thousands of ideas there > must be one that is right. The problem is finding that one, and here's > where crowdsourcing helps. Wings uses an internal prediction market to > evaluate proposals. > > Keep criticism coming! > > PS CubeCab is cool! http://cubecab.com/ > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. ;) >> >> Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most >> corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who buy >> are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money seeking to >> make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus often at >> odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on whatever >> the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors too >> often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day >> decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or "management" and >> often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the >> investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them more. >> (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large public >> companies, but that's a separate topic.) >> >> This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get a >> majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: controlling >> the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public companies >> if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, for >> CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands at >> least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm "management" >> if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors without >> much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking their own >> investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least not >> so easily.) >> >> The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in both >> cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it >> turns out, much actual wisdom. >> >> Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the >> shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called >> "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good formulas >> you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth $0 >> too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe well >> established stuff. >> >> On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: >> >> Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. >> The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs >> entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all >> shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this >> model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of >> the crowd. >> >> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of >>> space startup companies all across the world, other than that you >>> haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to >>> focus on? >>> >>> "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than >>> one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab >>> components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one >>> or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - >>> the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which >>> specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, >>> decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has >>> proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, >>> "and our people will sit on chairs"). >>> >>> And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find >>> one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to >>> them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and >>> payback? >>> >>> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if >>> you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that >>> you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's >>> deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude >>> people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then >>> will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular >>> what. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>>> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >>>> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >>>> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >>>> requests to join welcome. >>>> >>>> >>>> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 17:14:52 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:14:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: CubeCab might "take" payment in cryptocurrency...if the payee took on the onus of converting it to US$ first and actually handed over US$, which is technically what happens with some places that "accept" cryptocurrency. Then again, this is what we'd lead toward for euros or any other non-US$ currency too. On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Don't worry Adrian, that - doing all the needed research and then some, and > learning from others' mistakes - is exactly what I want to do. I started a > working group for this project because I think the idea is cool and worth > doing, but I still have many questions and not enough solid answers. I > started this conversation to refine my initial ideas, and I especially value > the advise of those who have been at the school of hard knocks (I have been > there too). > > Besides the need for watertight security and the other points you raise, I > find this point especially critical: > > Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least > theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, > and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires > hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or > assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches > (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost > for small satellites). > > > In fact, it's much easier to apply the DAO model to projects related to > cryptocurrency itself, not only because there is no hardware to build or > ship back and forth, but also because most internal and external payments > are in the DAO's native cryptocurrency. In the real world things are not so > simple. For example, if a DAO project wants to launch a cubesat with > CubeCab, I doubt you would accept a payment in whatever the DAO's native > cryptocurrency is, so there should be a mechanism to convert crypto to > dollars and pay you. That could be done with smart contracts. > > There is a lot of initial work to do to adapt the DAO concept to real world > projects. > > Unrelated note: I am sending this from Protonmail but Gmail is much faster > and easier to use, so I think I'll go back to Gmail. Google has the money to > develop great services, and it's difficult to develop great services without > Google's money - then, perhaps, this IS related to the topic... > -- > Giulio Prisco > https://giulioprisco.com/ > giulioprisco at protonmail.ch > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [ExI] A decentralized autonomous space agency > Local Time: March 21, 2017 7:31 PM > UTC Time: March 21, 2017 6:31 PM > From: atymes at gmail.com > To: ExI chat list > > The DAO was a funding agency/VC-like. It had at least celebrity > status and hot buzz. Space...you'd think it has buzz, but that's > nothing compared to software/virtual anything or biotech (including > health care). The product was the promise of funding cryptocurrency > projects. It's also been basically shut down after less than a year > in existence and being hacked to drain $50M of that $150M. I assume > you wish to create something to create lasting value, not merely > flash-in-the-pan where you can trick people, cash out, and be done > with it as those who got rich off the DAO (whether or not those were > the ones who ran the Kickstarter) did. (If scamming people for a > quick cash out is your goal, I decline to assist.) > > In a public corporation, if you or I have enough money, we can buy > enough shares that we do have a say in the governance. Alternately, > we can incite a shareholder revolt, by organizing and motivating > people who collectively have enough shares to matter - which tends to > require arguing well. Mechanisms for delegation - also known as > "proxy voting" - are well established. In a DAO...same deal: only > those who buy a lot of shares, or can organize a voting block among > many people who collectively have enough shares, matter in practice, > no matter the hype. (Karma adjustments devolve to "more votes for > whoever those who write the code that hands out karma - or, worse, who > manually hand out karma - agree with", effectively giving the > karma-controllers more votes to delegate.) No, seriously, a DAO is > basically a corporation, just one that tries to enforce its governance > through computer code instead of through legal code. > > There are different forms of "crowdsourcing". Just lazily asking > people for ideas doesn't work well. A far, far more effective version > is known as "research": start with an idea, look up what people have > said about that idea and similar ones (which can involve asking around > but most of it doesn't: you just look up articles and studies that > have already been done), refine and revise, repeat until you have a > model built from solid facts - not "this is cool so people should", > but solid data based on what people have done and are doing - that > shows a strong likelihood of success (which usually includes a > positive return on investment for whatever resources anyone chips in). > > Over 90% of startups fail, most often because their founders refuse to > do the research before committing resources - especially other > peoples' resources. In space launch specifically, the average > lifespan of a startup is less than two years, before those backing the > idea give up as they find it hard, or are unable to attract sufficient > funding. (CubeCab's more than 2 years old, mainly because I'm a > stubborn SoB...but also because I did the research and have a viable > enough model to attract a bit of resources and help, not to mention > lots of would-be customers though they generally won't pay anything > until after we've flown something - again, because most space launch > startups die without actually launching. It's a catch 22 we're > working on.) > > If I can give you one piece of advice at this stage, it's to do the > research and learn from other peoples' fails. Acknowledge that people > have tried things like your idea - including the DAO itself, but far > more than just the DAO. Know that, any time you think your idea is > unique and special and totally unprecedented, you are wrong: there's > always, always someone who's done something like yours. Your job is > to find these and note how your idea is different - how they failed > and you won't repeat their mistakes (or, rarely, how they succeeded in > this other area and you'll repeat their success). > > Let's start with: the DAO itself basically folded; its administrators > are now trying to get money back to those who chipped in as best they > can, but it looks like less than 20% can be recovered. (Source: > Wikipedia.) There are many reasons why it failed; the hack of 1/3 of > their money is notable, but they forked to try to fix that - and even > ignoring that, a 33% drain is less than the majority of the at least > 80% loss. What are the other reasons why it lost so much money? > > Also: the DAO, being about cryptocurrency, could at least > theoretically apply its principles to its primary area of operation, > and requires no centralized physical locations. Space requires > hardware, which means there is a place where it is manufactured (or > assembled from distributed components) and a place for launches > (likely outsourced, but launch tends to be the majority of the cost > for small satellites). How is a DAO relevant to the industry given > these needs? Potential answers come from the current established > industries - telecommunications and earth observation - which are all > about data, but saying you can take cryptocurrency experience and > apply it to space, with no further elaboration, is like a Web > application developer claiming that experience gives them expertise > about laying cable and setting up telecommunication exchanges. (If > you're familiar with the OSI model, you have experience in layers 5-7, > maybe 4, and you're trying to apply it to layers 1-2.) > > But seriously: learn from other peoples' fails, as relevant to what > you seek to do. It's what I did for years to shape CubeCab into > something remotely potentially possible. (And thanks for the like.) > At this point we have something where we can credibly seek funding, > and we've even been invited to present at the Paris Air Show (though I > don't yet know whether we will: the opportunity will cost a lot of $, > and we only have so much). And especially in space, there are so many > fails to learn from. > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> Thanks Adrian, >> >> re "you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are >> worth $0 too" - that should also apply to The DAO... but they raised >> $150 million in weeks! At the beginning, the novel participatory >> governance model IS the product. >> >> re "Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described >> most corporations." - I disagree. You and I (average investors, not >> seriously rich) can buy shares in a public corporation, sell the >> shares and maybe get dividends now and then, but our decision making >> power is nil. In a private corporation, we can't even buy shares. In a >> DAO, everyone can buy shares and everyone can participate in decision >> making. Of course, the votes of those with many shares count more, but >> if you argue well you can persuade others. There's easy delegation and >> "liquid democracy." Also, shares could be karma-adjusted in voting >> (I'm thinking aloud here). >> >> re "The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - >> and in both cases, for actual working space projects, there's >> fascination but not, it turns out, much actual wisdom." - in other >> words, fascination is easy but wisdom is hard. Of course I can't >> disagree, but isn't this one more reason to crowdsource? If you have >> just one idea it's probably wrong, but among thousands of ideas there >> must be one that is right. The problem is finding that one, and here's >> where crowdsourcing helps. Wings uses an internal prediction market to >> evaluate proposals. >> >> Keep criticism coming! >> >> PS CubeCab is cool! http://cubecab.com/ >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> To be clear: I offer you this criticism because I want you to succeed. ;) >>> >>> Governance belongs to those who buy shares? You have described most >>> corporations. The problem you are concerned about comes when those who >>> buy >>> are not those who do the work, but just those with a lot of money seeking >>> to >>> make more, by selling later for a higher price, with interests thus often >>> at >>> odds with the workers in practice. (Also, the workers - working on >>> whatever >>> the corp does - tend to know a bit about the field, while the investors >>> too >>> often lack this experience.) These investors often delegate day to day >>> decisions to a few people, who are known as "executives" or "management" >>> and >>> often have way more shares than the workers (but usually less than the >>> investors) because the investors, having appointed them, trust them more. >>> (This dynamic has spiraled way beyond reasonable bounds at many large >>> public >>> companies, but that's a separate topic.) >>> >>> This is especially the case when the just-in-it-for-the-money types get a >>> majority of the shares, making the workers' shares worthless re: >>> controlling >>> the organization's direction, as eventually happens at most public >>> companies >>> if it wasn't already the case before they went public. (This is why, for >>> CubeCab, I'm trying to keep a majority of shares in the workers' hands at >>> least until IPO/acquisition - including my own, and granted I'm >>> "management" >>> if anyone here is. But there are so many really bad ideas investors >>> without >>> much experience in the market would likely try, ironically tanking their >>> own >>> investment along with our hard work. I'm not in this to fail, at least >>> not >>> so easily.) >>> >>> The wisdom of those with money is not the wisdom of the crowd - and in >>> both >>> cases, for actual working space projects, there's fascination but not, it >>> turns out, much actual wisdom. >>> >>> Also you have to pick a project and start gathering resources before the >>> shares are worth anything. No, seriously: there's this thing called >>> "valuation" with lots of ways to calculate it, but by all the good >>> formulas >>> you have a valuation of $0 right now, so all the shares of it are worth >>> $0 >>> too. You've yet to do anything new, except use new words to describe well >>> established stuff. >>> >>> On Mar 21, 2017 4:46 AM, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Adrian, and don't worry, harsh criticism is exactly what I want. >>> The difference is in the ownership and governance model. A DAO belongs >>> entirely to its members (those who chose to buy shares) and all >>> shareholders are empowered to easily vote on all decisions. So this >>> model replaces traditional exec/management layers with the wisdom of >>> the crowd. >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>>> How is this meaningfully different from the (literally) thousands of >>>> space startup companies all across the world, other than that you >>>> haven't yet picked a particular project or set of related projects to >>>> focus on? >>>> >>>> "Funded by bitcoin/crypto" is not a meaningful difference; more than >>>> one of those others is too. "Assembles space hardware from prefab >>>> components" is true of at least a quarter of them. "Is focused on one >>>> or more potentially world changing projects" is true of most of them - >>>> the dreams run strong - except, again, they have decided which >>>> specific projects they will work upon. Likewise "global, distributed, >>>> decentralized" has been done in spades (not "to death" because it has >>>> proven a viable model - but at this point it's a bit short of saying, >>>> "and our people will sit on chairs"). >>>> >>>> And if it isn't, why should anyone care, when they can instead find >>>> one of those startups (one that works on a project that appeals to >>>> them), work with/for them, and have a far higher chance of success and >>>> payback? >>>> >>>> Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you need answers to those questions if >>>> you seek to accomplish anything. Your overview doc acknowledges that >>>> you need to decide on "WHY/WHAT" before moving past that, but it's >>>> deeper than you know: deciding on the what will, necessarily, exclude >>>> people who aren't interested in that particular what - and only then >>>> will you see if you have a group capable of addressing that particular >>>> what. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 3:26 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>>>> I started a working group to discuss conceptual and implementation >>>>> related aspects of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) >>>>> focused on world-changing space projects. Comments, thoughts and >>>>> requests to join welcome. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://giulioprisco.com/a-decentralized-autonomous-space-agency-43232aed471c >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 18:41:07 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:41:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, As I?ve attempted to say over and over again (you always seem to think my answer is no to this): yes, ?*if the substituted component interacts with its neighbours normally then the whole system will be able to distinguish red from green and normally? * But, when you do a neuro substation from redness to purpleness, to whiteness, to oneness?, each of these isolates substituted stages will only be able to know the difference between red and green with very measurably (both objectively and subjectively) different representations of red and green knowledge. And if you don?t do the neuro substitution in the right way, including the necessary functionality of being aware of all the voxels of qualitative knowledge at the same time, so you can compare them all at the same time, and if you insist on twisting any theory attempting to include the redness, greenness?, comparison abilities, the way you always do, you will remain qualia blind. Doing so will make you tempted to erroneously claim that whatever is representing redness and greenness, even if it is some kind of distinguishable functional process, you will erroneously think you have proven that redness is preserved with such an insufficient neural substitution. Brent On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed., 22 Mar. 2017 at 8:22 pm, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: >> >> >> But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever >> that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the >> substituted part is behaviorally identical. "Behaviorally identical" means >> that it interacts with its neighbors in the same way - nothing else. >> >> >> Well, there you have it. I'm guessing that you still can't see how this >> is what I've been trying to say all along. You must include this >> comparison behavior when you do any type of neural substitution correctly. >> Not preserving this functionality in your theory is what makes it >> fallacious. Can you not see that up until now, you've always nuro >> substituted out any theory I provided that included this ability? You >> always twisted any theoretical system I was proposing, that preserves this >> ability to compare during the neuro substitution, in a way that always >> completely removed this comparison ability. Go ahead, propose any >> qualitative theory that preserves this, then try a nuro substitution with >> it. >> >> If you provide a qualitative theory that include the necessary ability to >> compare red and green in your neuro substitutuion, you will be able to do a >> neural substitution from redness/greenness to purpleness/yellowness, in a >> way that both of them will behave the same honestly and accurately saying: >> "I know what red and green are like". You will be able to do this again, >> to blackness and whiteness. And again to oneness and zeroness. All of >> them still correctly proclaiming: "I know what red and green is like for >> me." >> >> But, the only way to keep them "Behaviorally identical" is to keep each >> of these neural substituted conscious entities qualia blind and >> qualitatively isolated from each other - the way all of you still are. If >> you do the neural substitution in any way, such that the qualitative >> isolation is not preserved, the behavior will not be different saying >> things like: redness and greenness sure are different than purpleness and >> yellowness. For example, you could add a qualitative memory system, so >> that the being could remember and compare what redness and greenness was >> like, before the qualitative substitution. >> >> It is also important to remember, that we are talking about a simple 2 >> qualitative pixel element comparison system. It's easy to preserve >> isolation with such a simple system, especially when you have a system your >> are substituting that only interacts with a few of it's neighbors. If you >> have a qualitative system like we have, where you can compare any of the >> tens of thousands of qualitative pixel or voxel element with all of the >> others at the same time, preserving the isolation is much more difficult, >> but not impossible. All of the tens of thousands of voxel elements must >> interact with all the others in some comparison enabling way - allowing the >> qualitative comparison of them all at the same time >> >> There is a scene in the British TV series "Humans" season 2 where one of >> the "Synths" that has become "conscious" recollects that life was very >> different before he become "conscious". Once we are no longer qualia >> blind, we'll all demand that our TV shows be much less qualia blind, having >> them say things more like like: "My oneness and zeroness representations of >> red and green were sure qualitatively less than my new redness and >> greenness representations. At least in Humans, you can see this >> qualitative recognition they have, on their faces, when they become >> conscious, and they walk outside for the first time. If they were >> "behaving the same", they wouldn't have that astonished look on their face, >> after they walk outside, once they become qualitatively "conscious." >> > > So, do you agree that if the substituted component interacts with its > neighbours normally then the whole system will be able to distinguish red > from green and normally? Or can you imagine a situation where the > substituted component interacts with its neighbours normally but the system > does *not* behave normally? If the latter, please explain, preferably with > an example not related to consciousness. > > -- > 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 Mar 22 19:46:42 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 13:46:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:32 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > ?> ? >> Well, there you have it. I'm guessing that you still can't see how this >> is what I've been trying to say all along. You must include this >> comparison behavior when you do any type of neural substitution correctly. >> > > ?Am I correct in saying you are arguing if the internal operation of a > neuron has changed then that counts as a change in behavior even if the > neuron as a whole behaves the same way with other external neurons, and > even if the person as a whole behaves the same way with other external > people?? > > ?I sometimes have trouble following you so I don't want to say more about > that until I get confirmation ?that is indeed what you are saying. > It sounds like you are asking me a similar thing to what Stathis is asking me, and making the same incorrect assumption that I mean the opposite of what I'm attempting to say as an answer over and over again. Yes "if the internal operation of a neuron has changed then that [DOES NOT] count as a change in behavior [AS LONG AS] the neuron as a whole behaves the same way with other external neurons, But also, you are making a very similar mistake in your thinking. There is no way to, within a single neuron, change qualitative nature of one voxel of our visual field of awareness, in a way that that all other neurons, representing all the other tens of thousands of qualitative voxels interact with them, sufficiently so they can do any kind of comparison. There must be some kind of deferent neural behavior in your theory, to enable qualitative comparison and awareness on such a large scale. You can't do that with one isolated neuron, especially if it is firing the same with ALL of it's many downstream connections. Again, as long as you are only thinking of one neuron, it removes any ability for the system to do any large or even small scale qualitative comparisons. > > ?> ? >> If you provide a qualitative theory that >> ? [...]? >> > > ?No ? > qualitative theory > ? of the mind can ever be proven wrong, so no ? > qualitative theory > ? of the mind can ever be worth more than a bucket of warm spit. > The theory I am promoting is predicting that there are elemental qualities that will be relatively easy to "eff" to intelligent scientists. And that there is already likely enough knowledge of how neurons handle color knowledge, for which, if scientists were not qualia blind (i.e. not incorrectly interpreting their abstracted observation data), they could discover at least the real neural correlate of such things as elemental redness, greenness, and so on. Also, the theory predicts that even if there isn't easily elemental qualia, that once we start completely re architecting, enhancing and merging brains, you will be able to create a qualitative meta combined John Brent that is fully aware of all of John's consciousness and Brent's consciousness. Such a metta combined supper brain will be able to completely experience John's redness, and brent's redness sufficiently to be able to be aware of and point out, which parts of these two rednesses are the same, and which are different. So, if science demonstrates any of this kind of, effing the ineffable in any way, do you not agree that it will falsify your theory that predicts redness and greenness are not approachable via science and not objectively effable, or discoverable, in any way? > > >> ?> ? >> You will be able to do this again, to blackness and whiteness. And again >> to oneness and zeroness. All of them still correctly proclaiming: "I know >> what red and green is like for me." >> > > ?I don't need to trust it or for it to say anything, if a machine can > correctly tell me if there is one marble in a tray or zero marbles in a > tray, and sort black marbles from white marbles, and sort red marbles from > green marbles, then I must conclude it knows what zero and one is, what > white and black is, and what red and green is as well as you do because > I've seen both of you pass those tests. Of course I will never prove for > certain that either of you are conscious of one or zero or experience color > qualia as I do, so I must just learn to live with some slight uncertainty > in my life. I think I can do that because the uncertainty is pretty slight. > Really, you think there is no one in the world that has inverted, or maybe more diverse qualitative experiences from what you have? Do you want me to start listing the many evidences that there is quite a bit of qualitative diversity between humans, that you seem to be completely ignoring? > ?> ? >> There is a scene in the British TV series "Humans" season 2 where one of >> the "Synths" that has become "conscious" recollects that life was very >> different before he become "conscious". >> > > ?I'm not a Synths but it's exactly the same with me. I was not conscious > in 1492 but I was in 2002, so my life in 2002 was very different from my > life in 1492, > and my memory of Christopher Columbus is qualitatively ?different from my > life and memory of George W Bush. > > > >> ?> ? >> If they were "behaving the same", they wouldn't have that astonished look >> on their face, after they walk outside, once they become qualitatively >> "conscious." >> > > ?Use yourself as a test vehicle, 13.8 billion years went by when you were > not conscious, don't you find that vast stretch of time astonishingly > different than the last few decades when you were conscious? I certainly > do, proving to my satisfaction that there is indeed a difference between > consciousness and non-consciousness. Or at least it is for me. > No, you are misunderstanding what I mean by when a synth is awareness of color via oneness and zeroness representations. That is another thing that such science fiction movies get completely wrong, by think synths only become "self aware", once they become qualitatively conscious The non conscious synths are very "self aware", even likely more self aware than we are. The only difference is, their self awareness is composed of patters of oneness and zeroness. And when a newly conscious synth uses memory to compare his redness knowledge of red, with his old oneness knowledge of red. This old oneness knowledge of red is much more "self aware" than what you or I were before we were born, or even when we are asleep and not dreaming. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 20:12:29 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:12:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > Hi Stathis, > ? > as I?ve attempted to say over and over again (you always seem to think my > answer is no to this): yes, ?if the substituted component interacts with > its neighbours normally then the whole system will be able to distinguish > red from green and normally? ?Good.? > ?> ? > But, when you do a neuro substation from redness to purpleness, to > whiteness, to oneness?, each of these isolates substituted stages will only > be able to know the difference between red and green with very measurably > (both objectively and subjectively) different representations of red and > green knowledge. I don't know what that means. ?> ? > And if you don?t do the neuro substitution in the right way, > > ?And ?how do you know if the neuro substitution in the subject was done the right way? ?If afterwards a disinterested party who knows the subject well can detect no change in behavior but you can detect noises emanating from the subject's mouth that sounds like "subjectively I feel exactly the same as I did before" then you know the neuro substation was done in the right way. And I know of no other way of doing this, if you do I'd like to hear about it. ? > ?> ? > including the necessary functionality of being aware of all the voxels ?How do you know if it's aware? ?The entire point of the neuro substation thought experiment is to try to figure out what is aware and what is not, if you already have some magical way of determining this then what's the point of the thought experiment? > ?> ? > Doing so will make you tempted to erroneously claim that whatever is > representing redness and greenness, even if it is some kind of > distinguishable functional process, you will erroneously think you have > proven that redness is preserved with such an insufficient neural > substitution. ?I agree that the preservation of behavior does not prove that consciousness or color qualia has also been preserved but it is powerful evidence that it probably has been because if it has not then Darwin was dead wrong. And I don't think Darwin was wrong. ? ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 22 20:51:24 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:51:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu., 23 Mar. 2017 at 5:42 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > > As I?ve attempted to say over and over again (you always seem to think my > answer is no to this): yes, ?*if the substituted component interacts with > its neighbours normally then the whole system will be able to distinguish > red from green and normally? * But, when you do a neuro substation from > redness to purpleness, to whiteness, to oneness?, each of these isolates > substituted stages will only be able to know the difference between red and > green with very measurably (both objectively and subjectively) different > representations of red and green knowledge. And if you don?t do the > neuro substitution in the right way, including the necessary functionality > of being aware of all the voxels of qualitative knowledge at the same time, > so you can compare them all at the same time, and if you insist on twisting > any theory attempting to include the redness, greenness?, comparison > abilities, the way you always do, you will remain qualia blind. Doing so > will make you tempted to erroneously claim that whatever is representing > redness and greenness, even if it is some kind of distinguishable > functional process, you will erroneously think you have proven that redness > is preserved with such an insufficient neural substitution. > But you *cannot* substitute a component preserving its interactions with its neighbours and end up changing the qualitative experience of redness and greenness. Try to describe what a person with such a substitution would behave like, and what he would experience. Suppose it's a friend you see all the time. You meet him and he reveals he has had the surgery. What will you ask him? What will he tell you? What do you think he is feeling as he talks to you about his experience of red and green? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 00:05:22 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 20:05:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 3:46 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > > There is no way to, within a single neuron, change qualitative nature of > one voxel of our visual field of awareness, in a way that that all other > neurons, representing all the other tens of thousands of qualitative voxels > interact with them, sufficiently so they can do any kind of comparison. > There must be some kind of deferent neural behavior in your theory, to > enable qualitative comparison and awareness on such a large scale. ? You keep using the word "qualitative" but quality is subjective and there is absolutely no way to compare ? the ? subjectively ? of one neuron with the subjectivity of another neuron, or compare the subjectivity of a 100 billion neurons that make up a brain with the subjectivity of another brain. > ?> ? > Also, the theory predicts that even if there isn't easily elemental > qualia, that > once we start completely re architecting, enhancing and merging brains, you > will be able to create a qualitative meta combined John Brent that is fully > aware of all of John's consciousness and Brent's consciousness. > ?Consciousness theories are a dime a dozen, they're notoriously easy to dream up because there are no facts they must fit. W hat experiment could I perform even in theory to prove that your theory was correct? There is none. W hat experiment could I perform ?even in theory that would prove that your theory was ?wrong? ? ??There is none. > ?> ? > Such a metta combined supper brain will be able to completely experience > John's redness, and brent's redness > ? ? > sufficiently to be able to be aware of and point out, which parts of these > two rednesses are the same, and which are different. > ?How could anyone know John Allsop had done that correctly? How could even John Allsop know that? Your theory may say he did but there is no way to ever know if your theory is right or wrong. So it's not science. ?> ? > So, if science demonstrates any of this kind of, effing the ineffable in > any way, do you not agree that it will falsify your theory that predicts > redness and greenness are not approachable via science and not objectively > effable, or discoverable, in any way? > ?I still don't know what ?"effing the ineffable" means, if it's ineffable then you can't eff it, but if science can find a way to directly detect consciousnesses without resorting to behavior then obviously that would prove I'm wrong. But that's one big if, in fact I would maintain its a impossible if. > ?> ? > Do you want me to start listing the many evidences that there is quite a > bit of qualitative diversity between humans, that you seem to be completely > ignoring? > Yes. If you have any evidence ?of the qualitative diversity ? (or similarity)? between humans ? that doesn't need the axiom that different conscious ?experiences produce different behaviors and different behaviors imply different consciousness then I would very much like for you to list them. > ?> ? > That is another thing that such science fiction movies get completely > wrong, by think synths only become "self aware", once they become > qualitatively conscious > ?What's the difference between conscious, qualitatively conscious ?, and self aware, and what test can I perform to determine which one other people have that doesn't depend on behavior?? > ?> ? > The non conscious synths are very "self aware", even likely more self > aware than we are. The only difference is, their self awareness is > composed of patters of oneness and zeroness. > ?Now I'm really confused, are you saying that the problem with computers is that at their most basic fundamental level they are digital? I hope that's not what you're saying because the genetic code is digital too and it made you the man you are, well that and the books you read, but books are digital too, as is this post. ? ?> ? > And when a newly conscious synth uses memory to compare his redness > knowledge of red, with his old oneness knowledge of red. This old oneness > knowledge of red is much more "self aware" than what you or I were before > we were born, or even when we are asleep and not dreaming. > ?I don't know what "? oneness knowledge of red ?" means.? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 23 18:11:35 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:11:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nanogeezers again References: <006301d2a278$2e84dc40$8b8e94c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <002801d2a400$e90db2b0$bb291810$@att.net> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] >?we can be the very first lifeforms in the history of life on this planet to know the answer to the burning question: what is the aspect ratio necessary to make a nanogeezer land on its square base 20% of the time? Philosophers have puzzled over this for millennia. The fate of the free world hangs in the balance. Spike Well damn. We hardcore empiricist philosophers have suffered a setback. I rolled those nanogeezers a bunch of times and came back with results I didn?t understand. So I posted to my collaborator and guy who made these on a printer. We eventually figured out that the anomalous results were caused by the way a solid object made on a 3D printer isn?t really solid. It has solid fill surfaces but its interior is more like a plastic foam. This impacts its center of mass. It isn?t clear that a 3D printed solid object can be made truly solid: this technology might not get us there. All is not lost however, for I came up with an idea: we could 3D print nGs of various sizes, then use those to make negatives, perhaps by using bondo (body putty.) Mix the bondo, stab the nanoGeezer into the soft bondo, it hardens, drill and tap a hole in the nanoGeezer, extract, now we have a mold of exactly the right dimensions. Light coat of some kind of mold release, such as furniture wax, pack soft bondo in the negative, hope the thing comes back out afterwards (might put it in the oven or something.) In the meantime, I have ordered another set of 20 nanoGeezers. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 23 20:55:59 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:55:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal Message-ID: An architecture firm has proposed a super tall skyscraper hanging from asteroid orbiting earth. Analemma inverts the traditional diagram of an earth-based foundation, instead depending on a space-based supporting foundation from which the tower is suspended. This system is referred to as the Universal Orbital Support System (UOSS). By placing a large asteroid into orbit over earth, a high strength cable can be lowered towards the surface of earth from which a super tall tower can be suspended. ---------- They do say that property prices there would be quite high. :) BillK From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Mar 23 21:36:14 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:36:14 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> John Clark wrote: > Am I correct in saying you are arguing if the internal operation of a neuron has changed then that counts as a change in behaviour even if the neuron as a whole behaves the same way with other external neurons, and even if the person as a whole behaves the same way with other external people? I suspect that this is the crux of the matter. That Brent thinks it makes a difference what goes on inside a black box, so that two different black boxes with different internal processing but the same interfaces, are somehow producing different behaviour, even though that is demonstrably false. > I sometimes have trouble following you ... You and me both. I await his response to your question with interest. He seems to show no inclination to respond to my questions, but perhaps you'll have better luck. Ben Zaiboc From atymes at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 00:08:46 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:08:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Another space elevator design, with no consideration of material strength, orbital traffic management, or the other well known problems of space elevators. Glad to see more enthusiasm, but why do so many people keep making big shows out of reinventing the wheel, if they want to be believed that they're doing anything new? On Mar 23, 2017 1:57 PM, "BillK" wrote: > An architecture firm has proposed a super tall skyscraper hanging from > asteroid orbiting earth. > > > > Analemma inverts the traditional diagram of an earth-based foundation, > instead depending on a space-based supporting foundation from which > the tower is suspended. This system is referred to as the Universal > Orbital Support System (UOSS). By placing a large asteroid into orbit > over earth, a high strength cable can be lowered towards the surface > of earth from which a super tall tower can be suspended. > ---------- > > > They do say that property prices there would be quite high. :) > > > 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 dsunley at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 04:15:53 2017 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:15:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There are elements in here that strongly suggest parody. "Since this new tower typology is suspended in the air, it can be constructed anywhere in the world and transported to its final location. The proposal calls for Analemma to be constructed over Dubai, which has proven to be a specialist in tall building construction at one fifth the cost of New York City construction." On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Another space elevator design, with no consideration of material strength, > orbital traffic management, or the other well known problems of space > elevators. > > Glad to see more enthusiasm, but why do so many people keep making big > shows out of reinventing the wheel, if they want to be believed that > they're doing anything new? > > On Mar 23, 2017 1:57 PM, "BillK" wrote: > >> An architecture firm has proposed a super tall skyscraper hanging from >> asteroid orbiting earth. >> >> >> >> Analemma inverts the traditional diagram of an earth-based foundation, >> instead depending on a space-based supporting foundation from which >> the tower is suspended. This system is referred to as the Universal >> Orbital Support System (UOSS). By placing a large asteroid into orbit >> over earth, a high strength cable can be lowered towards the surface >> of earth from which a super tall tower can be suspended. >> ---------- >> >> >> They do say that property prices there would be quite high. :) >> >> >> 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 pharos at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 09:11:17 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 09:11:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 March 2017 at 04:15, Darin Sunley wrote: > There are elements in here that strongly suggest parody. > Perhaps, but their credentials seem good. They have done work with NASA on the Mars Ice Dome design and are involved in many futuristic design projects, including real-life design work in New York. On the other hand, they are architects, not engineers. So their far-out speculative designs may well involve an element of 'Don't bother us with the technical details'. :) BillK From giulioprisco at protonmail.ch Fri Mar 24 09:39:01 2017 From: giulioprisco at protonmail.ch (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:39:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Columbus didn't bother with tech details either. If he had, he would have stayed home. Of course somebody will have to bother with tech details. Visionary architects have an important role to play, and practical engineers also have an important role to play. I would be very surprised if someone could pull this off with today's tech and realistic funding. But then, big surprises do happen now and then. -- Giulio Prisco https://giulioprisco.com/ giulioprisco at protonmail.ch -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal Local Time: March 24, 2017 10:11 AM UTC Time: March 24, 2017 9:11 AM From: pharos at gmail.com To: ExI chat list On 24 March 2017 at 04:15, Darin Sunley wrote: > There are elements in here that strongly suggest parody. > Perhaps, but their credentials seem good. They have done work with NASA on the Mars Ice Dome design and are involved in many futuristic design projects, including real-life design work in New York. On the other hand, they are architects, not engineers. So their far-out speculative designs may well involve an element of 'Don't bother us with the technical details'. :) 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 19:01:14 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 13:01:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Ben, I apologize for not responding to some of your questions, I need to try to be more diligent in this. I appreciate your patience, and I hope if I?m failing to answer any questions, you?ll repeat it till I do. But you should have heard me trying to describe this stuff 10 or 20 years ago, I think I?ve improved lots, thanks to patient help from people like all of you. In the past, most people just dismissed what I was trying to say, rather than trying to understand it enough to ask more questions. So at least I?ve gotten a few people understanding enough to ask more questions till they understand it fully. It seems that communication of this stuff is harder than the subject, itself. It seems harder than trying to eff what people falsely think is ineffable. I think you have it right, about what is the crux of the matter. What internal operations are important to include as necessary for qualitative experience behavior, and what is not? I think we would all agree that inverted or diversity of qualia is possible. In other words, two people behaving the same, saying something is ?red? could be modified to be inverted from each other. One?s person?s redness could be engineered to be more like another?s greenness. So, it?s critical to try to find effing of the ineffable ways to know what is really going on qualitative experience wise, in people?s brains, compared to our own. For example, with a large flat panel TV display, much of what that is, and how it functions, doesn?t matter. You can have a metal back plate, or a glass back plate? You could be using plasma pixel elements, or LCD pixel elements, or for that matter, you could be using oil paints ? all producing the same set of what is required to build a color picture we can have unified composite qualitative knowledge of. The important thing to keep in mind with a picture compared to knowledge of a picture, is how the knowledge is all bound together so we can be aware of it, qualitatively, all at once, as a composite qualitative experience. And there is much more semantic info bound into the knowledge than just the colored pixel elements. You can recognize people, fruit, mountains, and lots of information about what is going on. All this is bound together so all of it is interacting with all the rest. This kind of large scale interaction is what makes us so intelligent, and why evolution uses it over isolated, easily swappable, bits which can be neuro substituted in incorrect ways. The large screen TV picture pixels are very different. One pixel has no relation to any other pixels at all. Let alone the most lower left pixel being related to the upper right most pixel. But with us, all that stuff is related, and bound together, so that when one pixel changes, or becomes broken or black, it sticks out in comparison with all the others, like a sore thumb. To the TV, when one pixel dies, it has no effect on the rest of the TV. With a simplistic system that we normally think of neuro substituting, no matter what or how you do it, you can reproduce large flat screen TV like functionality. But, if you do it incorrectly, you can lose the ability for the lower left most pixel to interact with the upper right most pixel, so that you can tell if any of them are miss behaving or broken. That?s why I try to use the simplistic qualitative world, where the pixels can be represented with something simple, like glutamate, and glycine, and the binding mechanism can be a single neuron that connects to every single pixel. Objectively, it is something that works like a key, in a lock, knowing that when something is broken, or not the right color, the lock is failing, compared to all the other thousands of qualitative keys in qualitative locks which are working and distinguishing from each other. This kind of simplistic system includes the necessary functionality. Multiple pixels that can take on divers qualities, and something that binds them all together (a single neuron in the simplistic case), enabling the system to detect, and be aware of incorrect changes in any of them. Stathis, and so many other brilliant people, can?t get beyond: ?But you *cannot* substitute a component preserving its interactions with its neighbors and end up changing the qualitative experience of redness and greenness?. But it is easy to do this kind of neuro substitution in an insufficient system, in an incorrect way, where you remove the critical functionality of distinguishing between anything like redness and greenness or glycine and glutamate, or for that matter any possible ?redness function? compared to a ?greenness function? ? again, if done correctly You must do the neuro substitution on some type of system or some type of theory, like my simplistic theory, that includes the required ability to distinguish between physical things like glutamate and glycine (in an objective sense) or redness and greenness (in a subjective sense). If you do a neuro substitution on a sufficient system, that can distinguish things on a large scale like this, then it becomes obvious how you can easily do a nero substitution on an inadequate system, in a way that makes you think there are ?hard problems? and that there are no qualia, including ?functional qualia? anywhere in the system that you are neuro substituting. And you can also see, with the neuro substitution on an adequate system, how it can be done, resulting in necessary things like inverted qualia equivalent appearing behavior ? and it also includes in your sufficient theory or testable system, ways to ?eff the ineffable? in various week and strong ways, the way our left hemisphere surely does with our right. Please tell me again, what other questions you have, or if I haven?t answered any of them with this attempt. Thanks, Brent On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Ben wrote: > John Clark wrote: > > > Am I correct in saying you are arguing if the internal operation of a > neuron has changed then that counts as a change in behaviour even if the > neuron as a whole behaves the same way with other external neurons, and > even if the person as a whole behaves the same way with other external > people? > > I suspect that this is the crux of the matter. That Brent thinks it makes > a difference what goes on inside a black box, so that two different black > boxes with different internal processing but the same interfaces, are > somehow producing different behaviour, even though that is demonstrably > false. > > > I sometimes have trouble following you ... > You and me both. I await his response to your question with interest. He > seems to show no inclination to respond to my questions, but perhaps you'll > have better luck. > > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing 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 Fri Mar 24 20:50:24 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:50:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat., 25 Mar. 2017 at 6:02 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > > > Hi Ben, > > > > I apologize for not responding to some of your questions, I need to try to > be more diligent in this. I appreciate your patience, and I hope if I?m > failing to answer any questions, you?ll repeat it till I do. But you > should have heard me trying to describe this stuff 10 or 20 years ago, I > think I?ve improved lots, thanks to patient help from people like all of > you. In the past, most people just dismissed what I was trying to say, > rather than trying to understand it enough to ask more questions. So at > least I?ve gotten a few people understanding enough to ask more questions > till they understand it fully. It seems that communication of this stuff > is harder than the subject, itself. It seems harder than trying to eff > what people falsely think is ineffable. > > > > I think you have it right, about what is the crux of the matter. What > internal operations are important to include as necessary for qualitative > experience behavior, and what is not? I think we would all agree that > inverted or diversity of qualia is possible. In other words, two people > behaving the same, saying something is ?red? could be modified to be > inverted from each other. One?s person?s redness could be engineered to > be more like another?s greenness. > > > > So, it?s critical to try to find effing of the ineffable ways to know what > is really going on qualitative experience wise, in people?s brains, > compared to our own. > > > > For example, with a large flat panel TV display, much of what that is, and > how it functions, doesn?t matter. You can have a metal back plate, or a > glass back plate? You could be using plasma pixel elements, or LCD > pixel elements, or for that matter, you could be using oil paints ? all > producing the same set of what is required to build a color picture we can > have unified composite qualitative knowledge of. > > > > The important thing to keep in mind with a picture compared to knowledge > of a picture, is how the knowledge is all bound together so we can be aware > of it, qualitatively, all at once, as a composite qualitative experience. > And there is much more semantic info bound into the knowledge than just > the colored pixel elements. You can recognize people, fruit, mountains, > and lots of information about what is going on. All this is bound > together so all of it is interacting with all the rest. This kind of > large scale interaction is what makes us so intelligent, and why evolution > uses it over isolated, easily swappable, bits which can be neuro > substituted in incorrect ways. > > > > The large screen TV picture pixels are very different. One pixel has no > relation to any other pixels at all. Let alone the most lower left pixel > being related to the upper right most pixel. But with us, all that stuff > is related, and bound together, so that when one pixel changes, or becomes > broken or black, it sticks out in comparison with all the others, like a > sore thumb. To the TV, when one pixel dies, it has no effect on the rest > of the TV. > > > > With a simplistic system that we normally think of neuro substituting, no > matter what or how you do it, you can reproduce large flat screen TV like > functionality. But, if you do it incorrectly, you can lose the ability > for the lower left most pixel to interact with the upper right most pixel, > so that you can tell if any of them are miss behaving or broken. > > > > That?s why I try to use the simplistic qualitative world, where the pixels > can be represented with something simple, like glutamate, and glycine, and > the binding mechanism can be a single neuron that connects to every single > pixel. Objectively, it is something that works like a key, in a lock, > knowing that when something is broken, or not the right color, the lock is > failing, compared to all the other thousands of qualitative keys in > qualitative locks which are working and distinguishing from each other. > > > > This kind of simplistic system includes the necessary functionality. Multiple > pixels that can take on divers qualities, and something that binds them all > together (a single neuron in the simplistic case), enabling the system to > detect, and be aware of incorrect changes in any of them. > > > > Stathis, and so many other brilliant people, can?t get beyond: ?But you > *cannot* substitute a component preserving its interactions with its > neighbors and end up changing the qualitative experience of redness and > greenness?. But it is easy to do this kind of neuro substitution in an > insufficient system, in an incorrect way, where you remove the critical > functionality of distinguishing between anything like redness and greenness > or glycine and glutamate, or for that matter any possible ?redness > function? compared to a ?greenness function? ? again, if done correctly > I think you imagine that if glutamate is changed and glutamate is responsible for red qualia, then distal parts of the system (such as those reporting red qualia) will change even if all the physical interactions of the glutamate substitute are the same. But that is impossible. You must do the neuro substitution on some type of system or some type of > theory, like my simplistic theory, that includes the required ability to > distinguish between physical things like glutamate and glycine (in an > objective sense) or redness and greenness (in a subjective sense). If > you do a neuro substitution on a sufficient system, that can distinguish > things on a large scale like this, then it becomes obvious how you can > easily do a nero substitution on an inadequate system, in a way that makes > you think there are ?hard problems? and that there are no qualia, including > ?functional qualia? anywhere in the system that you are neuro substituting. > And you can also see, with the neuro substitution on an adequate system, > how it can be done, resulting in necessary things like inverted qualia > equivalent appearing behavior ? and it also includes in your sufficient > theory or testable system, ways to ?eff the ineffable? in various week and > strong ways, the way our left hemisphere surely does with our right. > > > > Please tell me again, what other questions you have, or if I haven?t > answered any of them with this attempt. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Brent > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Ben wrote: > > John Clark wrote: > > > Am I correct in saying you are arguing if the internal operation of a > neuron has changed then that counts as a change in behaviour even if the > neuron as a whole behaves the same way with other external neurons, and > even if the person as a whole behaves the same way with other external > people? > > I suspect that this is the crux of the matter. That Brent thinks it makes > a difference what goes on inside a black box, so that two different black > boxes with different internal processing but the same interfaces, are > somehow producing different behaviour, even though that is demonstrably > false. > > > I sometimes have trouble following you ... > You and me both. I await his response to your question with interest. He > seems to show no inclination to respond to my questions, but perhaps you'll > have better luck. > > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Mar 24 20:57:15 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:57:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58D5882B.7040205@yahoo.com> Ben wrote: > I await his response to your question with interest OK, Brent has answered, and his answer is "No". So, agreeing that it doesn't matter what goes on inside a black box as long as its interactions remain the same, I'm completely at a loss to understand his argument. Brent: "The theory I am promoting is predicting that there are elemental qualities..." So please explain what these 'elemental qualities' that you keep insisting on, are! I have no idea what they can be! And if you can't explain what they are, then please at least give some empirical evidence for their existence, because I can't see that there possibly can be such a thing as 'elemental feeling of being watched', or 'elemental quality of the sound of a french horn', etc. Using 'red' as an example is all very well, but you must recognise that 'red' is just one of billions of experiences that a person can have. Can you argue against the idea that 'red' is actually a high-level abstraction of more specific experiences such as the sight of a red ball a metre away, all the english telephone boxes I've ever seen, the sight of blood, etc.? Ben Zaiboc From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Mar 24 22:06:41 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 16:06:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Status, On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > I think you imagine that if glutamate is changed and glutamate is > responsible for red qualia, then distal parts of the system (such as those > reporting red qualia) will change even if all the physical interactions of > the glutamate substitute are the same. But that is impossible. > > >> Ha, with this I think I?ve caught you in another clear example of the isolationist mistake you are making. If glutamate was redness, then the one neuron representing the one voxel element representing the one spot on the surface of the strawberry, would be firing on all of its many, maybe even tens of thousands of its downstream synapses with glutamate. And if you changed glutamate, with glycene in any one of those synapses, the entire system would be screaming: ?Wait, back up, that glycine isn?t anything like it?s neighboring redness glutamate, until you replace that incorrect glycine in that one synapse, and interpreted it qualitatively correctly, by interpreting it back to real redness, um I mean real glutamate. Then you would have to repeat this same problem, until you replace all the glutamate, um a mean redness detectors in the entire brain, all in one big substitution step, and only then replace the entire comparison system, including all memory of glutamate, I mean redness, with glycine. And only then, with that massive substitution (it sucks how this massive substitution requirement always gets left out of your simplistic example), would you finally be able to have it substituted to be a qualia (or oneness and zeroness) invert where greenness, and all memory of such, has been replaced with redness, (or oneness) and visa versa. Sorry I can?t say it better than that right now. John or Ben, does that make any sense, whatsoever? I?ll work on improving the way I say it. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Mar 25 01:44:01 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:44:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67b6de99-f9f4-3511-460d-de137e1156af@gmail.com> God that's cool!! On 3/23/2017 2:55 PM, BillK wrote: > An architecture firm has proposed a super tall skyscraper hanging from > asteroid orbiting earth. > > > > Analemma inverts the traditional diagram of an earth-based foundation, > instead depending on a space-based supporting foundation from which > the tower is suspended. This system is referred to as the Universal > Orbital Support System (UOSS). By placing a large asteroid into orbit > over earth, a high strength cable can be lowered towards the surface > of earth from which a super tall tower can be suspended. > ---------- > > > They do say that property prices there would be quite high. :) > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Mar 25 02:36:11 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:36:11 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat., 25 Mar. 2017 at 9:07 am, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Status, > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > > > I think you imagine that if glutamate is changed and glutamate is > responsible for red qualia, then distal parts of the system (such as those > reporting red qualia) will change even if all the physical interactions of > the glutamate substitute are the same. But that is impossible. > > > > Ha, with this I think I?ve caught you in another clear example of the > isolationist mistake you are making. > > > > If glutamate was redness, then the one neuron representing the one voxel > element representing the one spot on the surface of the strawberry, would > be firing on all of its many, maybe even tens of thousands of its > downstream synapses with glutamate. And if you changed glutamate, with > glycene in any one of those synapses, the entire system would be screaming: > ?Wait, back up, that glycine isn?t anything like it?s neighboring redness > glutamate, until you replace that incorrect glycine in that one synapse, > and interpreted it qualitatively correctly, by interpreting it back to real > redness, um I mean real glutamate. Then you would have to repeat this > same problem, until you replace all the glutamate, um a mean redness > detectors in the entire brain, all in one big substitution step, and only > then replace the entire comparison system, including all memory of > glutamate, I mean redness, with glycine. And only then, with that > massive substitution (it sucks how this massive substitution requirement > always gets left out of your simplistic example), would you finally be able > to have it substituted to be a qualia (or oneness and zeroness) invert > where greenness, and all memory of such, has been replaced with redness, > (or oneness) and visa versa. > If you replace glutamate with glycine then yes, the whole system would be screaming that something was terribly wrong, because glycine will have no effect on glutamate receptors. Not only will any redness detection function fail, but the whole brain will probably stop working and the subject will die. That is why you have to do a more elaborate replacement: glutamate with glycine, glutamate receptors with glycine receptors (simplistically - you have to also make sure that the glycine receptors operate the same ion channels etc. as the glutamate receptors). Once you do this, the whole brain will work in the same way as before the substitution. It cannot possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't anything like its neighbouring redness glutamate", because the neurons controlling speech will all be firing in exactly the same way as before. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Mar 25 17:19:54 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 13:19:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: I have 3 questions for Brent Allsop: 1) Do you currently have any reason to believe somebody (other than yourself) who is in the middle of a calculus exam is conscious but 12 hours later when that same person is in his bed in a deep sleep is not? 2) Do you currently have any reason to believe a intelligent black woman is conscious but a intelligent silver robot is not? 3) There is nothing special about meat, so logically if one is skeptical about the existence of computer minds one should be equally skeptical about the existence of other minds in general and embrace solipsism. Do you agree? John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 25 19:53:12 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 14:53:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] not a nuanced view Message-ID: Paypal co-founder and Trump advisor Peter Thiel aims to end mortality. (?Basically, I?m against it,? he has said.) bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Mar 25 22:05:28 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 18:05:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > ?> ? > If glutamate was redness > ? [....]? > > Nobody is saying that glutamate, or any chemical for that matter, is redness because glutamate is a noun and the red quale is a adjective. However it could be that for some brains, if their atoms are organized in certain specific ways, glutamate might be able to produce the redness quale; but I'll never be able to prove or disprove that hypothesis for any brain other than my own. > ?> ? > if you changed glutamate, with glycene in any one of those synapses, the > entire system would be screaming: ?Wait, back up, that glycine isn?t > anything like it?s neighboring redness glutamate, > > ?G? lutamate ? and ? ?glycine? ?have different objective chemical properties, so I just don't see how this line of reasoning will help in the understanding of subjectivity.? If you exchange g ? lutamate ? with glyc ?i? ne in some neurons but not in others then obviously those neurons will be treated differently by their neighboring ?neurons. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 26 04:06:59 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2017 21:06:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] not a nuanced view In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00db01d2a5e6$6b4f5cb0$41ee1610$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 12:53 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] not a nuanced view Paypal co-founder and Trump advisor Peter Thiel aims to end mortality. (?Basically, I?m against it,? he has said.) bill w Peter Thiel is a good man. I wish him all the best in his effort to end mortality. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sun Mar 26 11:48:36 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 12:48:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58D7AA94.4060709@yahoo.com> Brent Allsop wrote: >I think you have it right, about what is the crux of the matter. What internal operations are important to include as necessary for qualitative experience And the answer to that is 'none'. Internal operations are irrelevant, as long as external behaviour remains the same. > two people behaving the same, saying something is 'red' could be modified to be inverted from each other. One person's redness could be engineered to be more like another's greenness. Perhaps, but the point is that we could never know if this was the case, not even in principle. And neither could the subjects of this experiment. > So, it's critical to try to find effing of the ineffable ways to know what is really going on qualitative experience wise, in people's brains, compared to our own. That sentence makes no sense. "What is really going on" and "Qualitative experience" are different kinds of thing. And that's why this 'possing the impossible' is not possible. > With a simplistic system that we normally think of neuro substituting, no matter what or how you do it, you can reproduce large flat screen TV like functionality. But, if you do it incorrectly, you can lose the ability for the lower left most pixel to interact with the upper right most pixel, so that you can tell if any of them are miss behaving or broken. Yes, indeed. What you're describing is an incomplete substitution that doesn't actually give the same outputs for the same inputs. You talk about connections, but nobody is suggesting breaking any connections, so there's no reason why the same associations would not occur. The only reason that interactions would be lost is if the interface of the new part was different to the old. And all along, we're talking about systems that preserve this interface exactly. So as long as that cortical column preserves all its connections with the rest of the brain, and implements exactly the same behaviour in terms of inputs/outputs, then it must be a 'correct' substitution. Think of it this way: How many different ways could you write a function that calculated the number of bricks needed to build a house, given a standard set of inputs such as size of house, size of bricks, etc.? If you were a builder, and wanted to use such a function, would you care in the slightest how it works, as long as it gives the correct answer? Would you prefer one over the other, if they all produced exactly the same result, were exactly as easy to use, and took exactly the same time to run, cost the same, ran on the same computers, etc.? I suspect you wouldn't. > Stathis, and so many other brilliant people, can't get beyond: "But you *cannot* substitute a component preserving its interactions with its neighbors and end up changing the qualitative experience of redness and greenness" Do you think there might be a good reason for this? Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sun Mar 26 13:03:42 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:03:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and, transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58D7BC2E.4040009@yahoo.com> Brent wrote: > Sorry I can't say it better than that right now. John or Ben, does that make any sense, whatsoever? Yes, it makes sense, but it's wrong. As Stathis has pointed out, you are only doing half the job, so of course it won't work, I want to try to simplify this further, by imagining a made-up system that detects squares and circles. The system has a pair of detectors, one of which responds to the input of a square with an output of 'S', and the other responds to the input of a circle with the output of 'C'. Attached to these detectors, is a signalling unit which has two types of receptor, a 'C' receptor and an 'S' receptor. Upon detection of a 'C' signal, it will transmit a code (ccc) to a distant modue. If it detects an 'S', it transmits a different code (sss). The distant module will emit a sound that depends on the signal it receives. It will emit the sound "I see a circle!" when it receives the code ccc, and "I see a square!" when it receives sss. So the behaviour of this system as a whole is that when a circle is presented to it, it will utter the phrase "I see a circle!", and when it sees a square, "I see a square!". The detectors and associated signalling unit can be regarded as a 'shape discriminator' module that outputs ccc when a circle is detected, and sss when a square is detected. OK so far? Now, what will happen when we tinker* with the internals of the discriminator so that the circle detector outputs an 'S' when it sees a circle, and the square dectector outputs a 'C' when it sees a square? Things go horribly wrong, don't they? The system now insists that circles are squares, and vice-versa. And what happens when we complete the job by tinkering with the signalling unit of the discriminator so that its 'S' receptor (which produces the signal sss) now responds to 'C' instead, and its 'C' receptor now responds to 'S'? We can say that we have substituted the shape discriminator which uses the internal signals C for 'circle' and S for 'square' for one that uses S for 'circle' and C for 'square' instead. But we have preserved its external behaviour by making sure it still emits sss when a square is seen, and ccc when a circle is seen. Its I/O behaviour is exactly the same. Does it make any sense to say, when a square is seen and the phrase "I see a square!" is uttered, the system actually has the 'experience' of seeing a circle, because internally, a C is being used instead of an S? Its behaviour after the substitution is unchanged, so it still correctly reports seeing circles and squares. *The signal 'C' does not, in itself, mean anything. It only means 'circle' in the context of the original discriminator. In the second version, its meaning is changed to 'square'.* Now do you see my objection to the 'glutamate = redness' idea? Yes, you've said "it's just a simplification, I don't really mean actual glutamate", but it doesn't matter, you still make the assumption that there is a signal, no matter how simple or complex, that, /in itself/, means a fixed thing, like 'red'. That's not how brains work. In the theoretical brain that houses my simplified example, that 'C' signal could also be used to represent a hundred other things besides the sight of a circle (or square). It could be used to convey that a sound is painfully loud, that the heart is beating fast and the taste component that oranges have in common with lemons, all at the same time. Ben Zaiboc *PS. Another thing worth mentioning is that this kind of 'tinkering' I'm talking about happens all the time, as part of the process of evolution. From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Mar 26 16:32:45 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 10:32:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <58D5882B.7040205@yahoo.com> References: <58D5882B.7040205@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9653a51f-b001-1149-9d1d-d3029e0947e7@gmail.com> Hi Ben, As far as I can tell, from reading this and subsequent posts, is that your theory is completely qualia blind or devoid. In no place in your theory is there anything we could experience as a redness quality, and be able to experience and distinguish it (and objectively detect such differences) from a greenness quality being experienced. From all I can see, you think redness can be "red", "0xF00"... or anything else as long as it is interpreted correctly. But that is absurd. What could make "red", "OxF00" be experienced as redness and what differences does "green" or "0x0F0" cause you to experience greenness? EVERYTHING you are describing is required to be properly interpreted. But remember, qualia just are - you experience them as is, there is no interpretation involved. Sure, you can interpret redness as "red" (ie reflects something like 650 nm light), "stop", and myriads of other things, but redness just is. What is it, in your theory, that has this redness and greenness, that are experienced, as is, without any interpretation? If I had two nearly identical conscious beings, one that represented the strawberry with redness knowledge, and the other that represented it with greenness knowledge, how could you possibly observe the difference, given your way of thinking about things, since in you theory it doesn't matter what it is, as long as it is interpreted correctly, and everything requires interpretation? Brent On 3/24/2017 2:57 PM, Ben wrote: > Ben wrote: > > > I await his response to your question with interest > > OK, Brent has answered, and his answer is "No". So, agreeing that it > doesn't matter what goes on inside a black box as long as its > interactions remain the same, I'm completely at a loss to understand > his argument. > > Brent: > "The theory I am promoting is predicting that there are elemental > qualities..." > > So please explain what these 'elemental qualities' that you keep > insisting on, are! I have no idea what they can be! > > And if you can't explain what they are, then please at least give some > empirical evidence for their existence, because I can't see that there > possibly can be such a thing as 'elemental feeling of being watched', > or 'elemental quality of the sound of a french horn', etc. Using 'red' > as an example is all very well, but you must recognise that 'red' is > just one of billions of experiences that a person can have. > > Can you argue against the idea that 'red' is actually a high-level > abstraction of more specific experiences such as the sight of a red > ball a metre away, all the english telephone boxes I've ever seen, the > sight of blood, etc.? > > Ben Zaiboc > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Mar 26 17:10:43 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:10:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Hi Stathis, You, and john are completely missing the point, and making obvious mistakes (as it seems to me) by doing so, and not modeling things with anything in your theory that is redness, such that it is distinguishable from greenness. Can you not see that everything you are talking about is removing the ability to distinguish between anything that is redness and greenness. Remember, for Stathis, every time I use the word "glutamate" you should think of a pattern of neurons firing in a particular "functional" way, that is a redness experience. And you have a binding neuron that can detect the function that is redness, and tell when it is different than the a different set of neurons, functioning as a greenness experience. Remember, that nothing but this particular set of neurons, firing in exactly the right functional way, outputting the correct neurotransmitter at the right time will convince the binding neuron/system that it is redness, which is different than greenness. So, when you are representing redness with a 0 (anything that does not have redness), you must interpret this zero, back into the correct set of neurotransmitters being fed to the detecting neuron, in the right functional pattern. And all ones, anything that is not greeness, must be translated back to the identical functional set of synapses neurotransmitter firings, before the not yet replaced binding neuron will say: "Yes that is still redness". In other words, when you replace all the redness functions with ones, and all the greenness functions with zeros, they all must be translated back to the right set of functional synapses firing, and fed to the binding neuron, for it to say: That compost experience is made up of redness and greenness. The mistake in Stathis logic is revealed when he says things like: " It cannot possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't anything like its neighbouring redness glutamate", because the neurons controlling speech will all be firing in exactly the same way as before." Can you not see how this is removing any necessary functionality required to distinguish between redness and greenness? The binding system, whatever you theorize it might be, must be able to detect the difference between whatever it is that is doing the greenness function, and whatever is doing the gredness function, and whatever is doing a oneness function, and whatever it is that is doing the zeroness function. If you present anything to the binding system, without the proper interpretation mechanism, converting back to the real redness it can detect, it must be able to fire differently, saying that is not real redness. Otherwise you are removing the ability to distinguish between redness and greenness, whatever it is. Once you replace simple glutamate and glycene, with very complected things like sets of functioning neurons firing in a particular functional way, things become so complicated, you can't see the theoretical qualitative mistakes you are making. You must remember that your continued arguments against glutamate not being redness do not apply. As they only are redness and greenness in the idealized simplified theoretical world. As I've said many times, this has nothing to do with the obviously much more complex real world. It is just meant as a simplistic model, so you can think about the fact that there must be something that is doing the redness function and there must be something that is doing the greenness function. And there must be womething that can bind these two together into a composit qualitative experience that can say: "Yes, those are qualitatively different" - not fire in the same way, when they are substituted out and replaced with something else. Earlier, Stathis claimed: "But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the substituted part is behaviourally identical" In other words, you are saying that there is a way to distinguish between redness and greenness, as long as it is behaviorally identical. But you can't see the mistake you are making with this. If you swap anything being presented to the binding system, with anything that is not redness, especially a 1, it must say: "that is not redness" it cannot say it is redness, or behave in the same way. It must behave differently, otherwise it is not functioning correctly and not able to distinguish qualitative differences. Brent On 3/24/2017 8:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Sat., 25 Mar. 2017 at 9:07 am, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > > Hi Status, > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: > > > > I think you imagine that if glutamate is changed and glutamate > is responsible for red qualia, then distal parts of the system > (such as those reporting red qualia) will change even if all > the physical interactions of the glutamate substitute are the > same. But that is impossible. > > > > Ha, with this I think I?ve caught you in another clear example of > the isolationist mistake you are making. > > If glutamate was redness, then the one neuron representing the one > voxel element representing the one spot on the surface of the > strawberry, would be firing on all of its many, maybe even tens of > thousands of its downstream synapses with glutamate.And if you > changed glutamate, with glycene in any one of those synapses, the > entire system would be screaming: ?Wait, back up, that glycine > isn?t anything like it?s neighboring redness glutamate, until you > replace that incorrect glycine in that one synapse, and > interpreted it qualitatively correctly, by interpreting it back to > real redness, um I mean real glutamate.Then you would have to > repeat this same problem, until you replace all the glutamate, um > a mean redness detectors in the entire brain, all in one big > substitution step, and only then replace the entire comparison > system, including all memory of glutamate, I mean redness, with > glycine.And only then, with that massive substitution (it sucks > how this massive substitution requirement always gets left out of > your simplistic example), would you finally be able to have it > substituted to be a qualia (or oneness and zeroness) invert where > greenness, and all memory of such, has been replaced with redness, > (or oneness) and visa versa. > > > If you replace glutamate with glycine then yes, the whole system would > be screaming that something was terribly wrong, because glycine will > have no effect on glutamate receptors. Not only will any redness > detection function fail, but the whole brain will probably stop > working and the subject will die. That is why you have to do a more > elaborate replacement: glutamate with glycine, glutamate receptors > with glycine receptors (simplistically - you have to also make sure > that the glycine receptors operate the same ion channels etc. as the > glutamate receptors). Once you do this, the whole brain will work in > the same way as before the substitution. It cannot possibly say "wait, > back up, that glycine isn't anything like its neighbouring redness > glutamate", because the neurons controlling speech will all be firing > in exactly the same way as before. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Mar 26 18:52:43 2017 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:52:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: snip > I would be very surprised if someone could pull this off with today's tech and realistic funding. I will be surprised if anyone *ever* pulls off an earth to GEO elevator. Carbon nanotubes are about the best we have. When you put a stress on a nanotube that's needed for elevators, the 6 member rings become unstable to 5 and 7 member rings and it unzips like a run in a stocking. > But then, big surprises do happen now and then. True. My disbelief in building orbital skyhooks didn't keep me from writing a story about them. http://htyp.org/UpLift (It's not as good as other things I have written.) Keith From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Mar 26 19:41:57 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:41:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b77aeac-6ff6-dedd-14e2-fd8eafa30ee5@gmail.com> That schematic diagram, where they show everything, obviously isn't anywhere close to scale. They have the international space station close to Geo, or the "Clarke Belt". The distance between those is HUGE. And I haven't seen anywhere where they describe how the G force changes. Obviously, it would be Zero in GEO. But what would it be on the top "FUNERARY" floors? Given the scale it is drawn it appears it would be about half a G on the top "FUNERARY" floor. But it probably is much more like .9 or more G, given the correct scale? Or does the fact that it is orbiting, even if only geostationary, change things at that altitude? Brent On 3/23/2017 6:08 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Another space elevator design, with no consideration of material > strength, orbital traffic management, or the other well known problems > of space elevators. > > Glad to see more enthusiasm, but why do so many people keep making big > shows out of reinventing the wheel, if they want to be believed that > they're doing anything new? > > On Mar 23, 2017 1:57 PM, "BillK" > wrote: > > An architecture firm has proposed a super tall skyscraper hanging from > asteroid orbiting earth. > > > > > Analemma inverts the traditional diagram of an earth-based foundation, > instead depending on a space-based supporting foundation from which > the tower is suspended. This system is referred to as the Universal > Orbital Support System (UOSS). By placing a large asteroid into orbit > over earth, a high strength cable can be lowered towards the surface > of earth from which a super tall tower can be suspended. > ---------- > > > They do say that property prices there would be quite high. :) > > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Sun Mar 26 20:45:07 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 13:45:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: <4b77aeac-6ff6-dedd-14e2-fd8eafa30ee5@gmail.com> References: <4b77aeac-6ff6-dedd-14e2-fd8eafa30ee5@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > That schematic diagram, where they show everything, obviously isn't anywhere > close to scale. They have the international space station close to Geo, or > the "Clarke Belt". The distance between those is HUGE. I'm willing to grant them that artistic license as something approximating logarithmic scale, since they do at least call out the altitudes, and above the funerary section there's a whole lot of nothing but cable. > And I haven't seen anywhere where they describe how the G force changes. > Obviously, it would be Zero in GEO. But what would it be on the top > "FUNERARY" floors? Given the scale it is drawn it appears it would be about > half a G on the top "FUNERARY" floor. But it probably is much more like .9 > or more G, given the correct scale? Or does the fact that it is orbiting, > even if only geostationary, change things at that altitude? It's been a while since I did the math, but I think G is proportional to height in this setup. So, 32 km (top of Funerary) out of just under 36,000 km? Basically 1G. (Their listed altitude is slightly off - GEO is actually 35,786 km instead of 35,750 km - but either way, over 0.999 G.) From pharos at gmail.com Sun Mar 26 20:54:04 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 21:54:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Orbital skyscraper proposal In-Reply-To: <4b77aeac-6ff6-dedd-14e2-fd8eafa30ee5@gmail.com> References: <4b77aeac-6ff6-dedd-14e2-fd8eafa30ee5@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26 March 2017 at 20:41, Brent Allsop wrote: > > That schematic diagram, where they show everything, obviously isn't anywhere > close to scale. They have the international space station close to Geo, or > the "Clarke Belt". The distance between those is HUGE. > > And I haven't seen anywhere where they describe how the G force changes. > Obviously, it would be Zero in GEO. But what would it be on the top > "FUNERARY" floors? Given the scale it is drawn it appears it would be about > half a G on the top "FUNERARY" floor. But it probably is much more like .9 > or more G, given the correct scale? Or does the fact that it is orbiting, > even if only geostationary, change things at that altitude? > The skyscraper seems to be built in sections, so I expect it would be built one section at a time, checking stresses, etc. as they go along. You would hardly notice the change in gravity. Even at the height of the space station you would still weigh about 9/10 normal. They get zero-G because they are in free-fall around the earth. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 26 22:32:24 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 18:32:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: ?Brent, you asked:? ?"? What could make "red", "OxF00" be experienced as redness and what differences does "green" or "0x0F0" cause you to experience greenness? ?"? ?And then you wrote this:? "?Remember , qualia just are - you experience them as is, there is no interpretation involved. ?" I'd say you just answered your own question, some things are brute facts they "just are". ? ?>? > redness just is. What is it, in your theory, that has this redness and > greenness, that are experienced, as is, without any interpretation? ?That question makes no sense. If redness just is, if it's just a brute fact that X produces redness then there is no why, there is no what, it just is. I think it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed, it just is. So nothing more of substance can be said about the fundamental nature of consciousness, but fear not, lots and lots more can be said? about how intelligence works. ?> ? > You, and john are completely missing the point, and making obvious > mistakes (as it seems to me) by doing so, and not modeling things with > anything in your theory that is redness, such that it is distinguishable > from greenness. > > ?It wouldn't be particularly difficult to make a robot that can distinguish red things from green things just as well as you can. Of course I don't know if the robot experiences red and green in the same way I do, but then I don't know that you do either. ? ?> ? Can you not see that everything you are talking about is removing the ability to distinguish between anything that is redness and greenness. > ?No, I don't see that at all!. ?A robot can put red marbles in one bin and green marbles in another bin and I don't see how it could do that if it couldn't distinguish between red and green. > ?> ? > Remember, that nothing but this particular set of neurons, firing in > exactly the right functional way, outputting the correct neurotransmitter > at the right time will convince the binding neuron/system that it is > redness, which is different than greenness. If that is true you can never prove it's true, but if it is true then you and I do NOT experience the redness qualia the same way because our brains are NOT exactly the same so the particular set of neurons in your brain are NOT firing in exactly the same functional way in my brain and they are NOT outputting the same neurotransmitter at exactly same time. > > > ?> ? > Earlier, Stathis claimed: "But the comparison of redness and greenness, or > anything else whatsoever that the system does, will necessarily occur > provided only that the substituted part is behaviourally identical" In > other words, you are saying that there is a way to distinguish between > redness and greenness, as long as it is behaviorally identical. > > ?I think Stathis is claiming if something can distinguish between red and green and then one part of the thing is substituted for another part that is behaviorally identical ? then that thing can still ? distinguish between red and green ?,? ? because otherwise it wouldn't be ? behaviorally identical ?. How on earth can anybody dispute that?? >you can't see the mistake you are making with this. If you swap anything > being presented to the binding system, with anything that is not redness, ?A neuron is not saying anything about redness, all it's saying is this is chemical X. In fact it's not even saying that, it's saying this is *probably *chemical X because neurons can be fooled; masquerading as chemicals they are not is how many neurotoxins work. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Mar 26 22:38:23 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:38:23 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brent Allsop wrote: >> You, and john are completely missing the point, and making obvious mistakes (as it seems to me) by doing so, and not modeling things with anything in your theory that is redness, such that it is distinguishable from greenness. Can you not see that everything you are talking about is removing the ability to distinguish between anything that is redness and greenness. Remember, for Stathis, every time I use the word "glutamate" you should think of a pattern of neurons firing in a particular "functional" way, that is a redness experience. And you have a binding neuron that can detect the function that is redness, and tell when it is different than the a different set of neurons, functioning as a greenness experience. Remember, that nothing but this particular set of neurons, firing in exactly the right functional way, outputting the correct neurotransmitter at the right time will convince the binding neuron/system that it is redness, which is different than greenness. So, when you are representing redness with a 0 (anything that does not have redness), you must interpret this zero, back into the correct set of neurotransmitters being fed to the detecting neuron, in the right functional pattern. And all ones, anything that is not greeness, must be translated back to the identical functional set of synapses neurotransmitter firings, before the not yet replaced binding neuron will say: "Yes that is still redness". In other words, when you replace all the redness functions with ones, and all the greenness functions with zeros, they all must be translated back to the right set of functional synapses firing, and fed to the binding neuron, for it to say: That compost experience is made up of redness and greenness. >> The mistake in Stathis logic is revealed when he says things like: " It cannot possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't anything like its neighbouring redness glutamate", because the neurons controlling speech will all be firing in exactly the same way as before." Can you not see how this is removing any necessary functionality required to distinguish between redness and greenness? The binding system, whatever you theorize it might be, must be able to detect the difference between whatever it is that is doing the greenness function, and whatever is doing the gredness function, and whatever is doing a oneness function, and whatever it is that is doing the zeroness function. If you present anything to the binding system, without the proper interpretation mechanism, converting back to the real redness it can detect, it must be able to fire differently, saying that is not real redness. Otherwise you are removing the ability to distinguish between redness and greenness, whatever it is. >> Once you replace simple glutamate and glycene, with very complected things like sets of functioning neurons firing in a particular functional way, things become so complicated, you can't see the theoretical qualitative mistakes you are making. You must remember that your continued arguments against glutamate not being redness do not apply. As they only are redness and greenness in the idealized simplified theoretical world. As I've said many times, this has nothing to do with the obviously much more complex real world. It is just meant as a simplistic model, so you can think about the fact that there must be something that is doing the redness function and there must be something that is doing the greenness function. And there must be womething that can bind these two together into a composit qualitative experience that can say: "Yes, those are qualitatively different" - not fire in the same way, when they are substituted out and replaced with something else. >> Earlier, Stathis claimed: "But the comparison of redness and greenness, or anything else whatsoever that the system does, will necessarily occur provided only that the substituted part is behaviourally identical" In other words, you are saying that there is a way to distinguish between redness and greenness, as long as it is behaviorally identical. But you can't see the mistake you are making with this. If you swap anything being presented to the binding system, with anything that is not redness, especially a 1, it must say: "that is not redness" it cannot say it is redness, or behave in the same way. It must behave differently, otherwise it is not functioning correctly and not able to distinguish qualitative differences. Brent, you are ignoring the actual observable behaviour of glutamate in the neuron. In simplified summary, it is released from the presynaptic neuron, diffuses across the synapse, binds to glutamate receptors on the postsynaptic neuron, which causes the postsynaptic neuron to fire. That's it! That's all that a scientist will see if he examines it! The postsynaptic neuron and presynaptic neuron may be part of a binding system detecting red and green but the scientist is ignorant of any of this - all he is interested in is the observable behaviour of glutamate! Once he figures this out he can replace the glutamate with another substance that behaves the same way - diffuses across the synapse, binds to glutamate receptors and causes the postsynaptic neuron to fire. He tries glutamate analogue G1 but it's no good: it binds to the receptor but it is a larger molecule that diffuses too slowly across the synapse, changing the timing of the neural firing and hence the behaviour of the system. He tries another molecule, G2, which diffuses across the synapse at the right rate but doesn't bind to the receptor as well, again changing the timing of neural firing and the behaviour of the system. He tries yet another molecule, G3, which is just right - it diffuses across the synapse at the right rate and has the right affinity for the glutamate receptor. So he swaps glutamate for G3 and now all the glutaminergic neurons, and hence all the other neurons in the brain, fire in the same sequence as before. Our scientist is happy and he goes home to play computer games! Given the above scenario, do you agree that all the neurons will fire in the same sequence? If you disagree, what is triggering them to fire differently that the scientist has failed to observe? Don't say "redness" or "the binding system" - what specific thing was the glutamate molecule doing that G3 is not doing, which the scientist missed? On 27 March 2017 at 04:10, Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > > You, and john are completely missing the point, and making obvious > mistakes (as it seems to me) by doing so, and not modeling things with > anything in your theory that is redness, such that it is distinguishable > from greenness. Can you not see that everything you are talking about is > removing the ability to distinguish between anything that is redness and > greenness. Remember, for Stathis, every time I use the word "glutamate" > you should think of a pattern of neurons firing in a particular > "functional" way, that is a redness experience. And you have a binding > neuron that can detect the function that is redness, and tell when it is > different than the a different set of neurons, functioning as a greenness > experience. Remember, that nothing but this particular set of neurons, > firing in exactly the right functional way, outputting the correct > neurotransmitter at the right time will convince the binding neuron/system > that it is redness, which is different than greenness. So, when you are > representing redness with a 0 (anything that does not have redness), you > must interpret this zero, back into the correct set of neurotransmitters > being fed to the detecting neuron, in the right functional pattern. And > all ones, anything that is not greeness, must be translated back to the > identical functional set of synapses neurotransmitter firings, before the > not yet replaced binding neuron will say: "Yes that is still redness". In > other words, when you replace all the redness functions with ones, and all > the greenness functions with zeros, they all must be translated back to the > right set of functional synapses firing, and fed to the binding neuron, for > it to say: That compost experience is made up of redness and greenness. > > > The mistake in Stathis logic is revealed when he says things like: " It > cannot possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't anything like its > neighbouring redness glutamate", because the neurons controlling speech > will all be firing in exactly the same way as before." Can you not see how > this is removing any necessary functionality required to distinguish > between redness and greenness? The binding system, whatever you theorize > it might be, must be able to detect the difference between whatever it is > that is doing the greenness function, and whatever is doing the gredness > function, and whatever is doing a oneness function, and whatever it is that > is doing the zeroness function. If you present anything to the binding > system, without the proper interpretation mechanism, converting back to the > real redness it can detect, it must be able to fire differently, saying > that is not real redness. Otherwise you are removing the ability to > distinguish between redness and greenness, whatever it is. > > > Once you replace simple glutamate and glycene, with very complected things > like sets of functioning neurons firing in a particular functional way, > things become so complicated, you can't see the theoretical qualitative > mistakes you are making. You must remember that your continued arguments > against glutamate not being redness do not apply. As they only are redness > and greenness in the idealized simplified theoretical world. As I've said > many times, this has nothing to do with the obviously much more complex > real world. It is just meant as a simplistic model, so you can think about > the fact that there must be something that is doing the redness function > and there must be something that is doing the greenness function. And > there must be womething that can bind these two together into a composit > qualitative experience that can say: "Yes, those are qualitatively > different" - not fire in the same way, when they are substituted out and > replaced with something else. > > > Earlier, Stathis claimed: "But the comparison of redness and greenness, or > anything else whatsoever that the system does, will necessarily occur > provided only that the substituted part is behaviourally identical" In > other words, you are saying that there is a way to distinguish between > redness and greenness, as long as it is behaviorally identical. But you > can't see the mistake you are making with this. If you swap anything being > presented to the binding system, with anything that is not redness, > especially a 1, it must say: "that is not redness" it cannot say it is > redness, or behave in the same way. It must behave differently, otherwise > it is not functioning correctly and not able to distinguish qualitative > differences. > > > Brent > > > > > > On 3/24/2017 8:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Sat., 25 Mar. 2017 at 9:07 am, Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Status, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I think you imagine that if glutamate is changed and glutamate is >> responsible for red qualia, then distal parts of the system (such as those >> reporting red qualia) will change even if all the physical interactions of >> the glutamate substitute are the same. But that is impossible. >> >> >> >> Ha, with this I think I?ve caught you in another clear example of the >> isolationist mistake you are making. >> >> >> >> If glutamate was redness, then the one neuron representing the one voxel >> element representing the one spot on the surface of the strawberry, would >> be firing on all of its many, maybe even tens of thousands of its >> downstream synapses with glutamate. And if you changed glutamate, with >> glycene in any one of those synapses, the entire system would be screaming: >> ?Wait, back up, that glycine isn?t anything like it?s neighboring redness >> glutamate, until you replace that incorrect glycine in that one synapse, >> and interpreted it qualitatively correctly, by interpreting it back to real >> redness, um I mean real glutamate. Then you would have to repeat this >> same problem, until you replace all the glutamate, um a mean redness >> detectors in the entire brain, all in one big substitution step, and only >> then replace the entire comparison system, including all memory of >> glutamate, I mean redness, with glycine. And only then, with that >> massive substitution (it sucks how this massive substitution requirement >> always gets left out of your simplistic example), would you finally be able >> to have it substituted to be a qualia (or oneness and zeroness) invert >> where greenness, and all memory of such, has been replaced with redness, >> (or oneness) and visa versa. >> > > If you replace glutamate with glycine then yes, the whole system would be > screaming that something was terribly wrong, because glycine will have no > effect on glutamate receptors. Not only will any redness detection function > fail, but the whole brain will probably stop working and the subject will > die. That is why you have to do a more elaborate replacement: glutamate > with glycine, glutamate receptors with glycine receptors (simplistically - > you have to also make sure that the glycine receptors operate the same ion > channels etc. as the glutamate receptors). Once you do this, the whole > brain will work in the same way as before the substitution. It cannot > possibly say "wait, back up, that glycine isn't anything like its > neighbouring redness glutamate", because the neurons controlling speech > will all be firing in exactly the same way as before. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Mar 27 21:26:02 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:26:02 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58D9836A.4000705@yahoo.com> Brent wrote: "As far as I can tell, from reading this and subsequent posts, is that your theory is completely qualia blind or devoid. In no place in your theory is there anything we could experience as a redness quality, and be able to experience and distinguish it (and objectively detect such differences) from a greenness quality being experienced." Of course. As I said before, subjective and objective are completely different things. You seem to think you can 'objectively detect' a subjective experience. If anything is absurd, that is. You're effectively saying we can determine the size of beauty. "What could make "red", "OxF00" be experienced as redness and what differences does "green" or "0x0F0" cause you to experience greenness?" The association of "red", "OxF00", etc., with memories of seeing telephone boxes and blood, etc. and the association of "green", "0x0F0" with memories of seeing grass, copper oxide, etc. Not to mention, of course, reading words like "crimson", "jade", etc., and imagining emotions like anger and jealousy... The lists are going to be rather large, I suspect (and of course, different for different individuals). The exact signals used in any given brain can be completely arbitrary, as long as they are consistent. You grow up getting a certain, probably randomly-derived signal to a certain stimulus, and that becomes the 'code' for that stimulus, reinforced by repetition. Babies probably start off with lots of different codes, that gradually get winnowed down to a smaller set through a kind of darwinian selection process. Someone else may well have a totally different code for the 'same' stimulus (by which I mean the same external stimulus, filtered through their own sensory apparatus). There is no static or constant 'thing' which somehow 'is' that experience, the experience is a compound process involving many neural circuits, and I'm willing to bet that over time, these change, possibly quite a lot, but we would still say that we experience the same thing as before (even though that is probably not true). In fact, I would challenge you to prove that your 'red' of today is the same as your 'red' of yesterday or last week or ten years ago. Surely, if subjective experience is measurable as you seem to think, this should be possible? "but redness just is" You keep telling us where we are going wrong. Now I'm going to tell you that this is where you are going wrong: "redness just is" is false. I'd go so far as to say that redness doesn't exist at all. It's a figment of your imagination. Ben Zaiboc From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 02:06:18 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:06:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare Message-ID: The USA spends FAR more on healthcare than any other country on the planet and has done so for many decades, yet it doesn't seem to be getting much bang for the buck. In 2016 the USA spends $9451 per-person per-year on healthcare but is only #31 on the list of countries with the longest lived citizens; Japan is #1 on the longevity list and spend only $4150 per person per year, Australia is # 4 and spends $4420, and at #31 is the USA which spends $9451. Every one of the top 30 longevity countries have 2 things in common: 1) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does. 2) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare. We are extropians and thus are believers in the scientific method, that means if a theory doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned no matter how beloved it may be, and that includes political theories. So as a extropian do you think maybe those top 30 longevity countries can teach us something? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 28 03:55:35 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 20:55:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >?1) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does. >?2) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare. >? So as a extropian do you think maybe those top 30 longevity countries can teach us something? John K Clark I would propose that we estimate what it would cost to have such a system, then as soon as the government is running a surplus at that level for three years in a row, we suggest to congress using that consistent surplus to create such a system. Using the three previous years of enormous surplus we can at least make a dent in the huge bills we have racked up in the last 20 years. Deal? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From markalanwalker at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 12:33:21 2017 From: markalanwalker at gmail.com (Mark Walker) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 06:33:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> References: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> Message-ID: Citizens in the US already pay more taxes directed at health care per capita than almost all other developed nations: [image: Inline image 1] Yes, this is a stunning feat: we pay more in taxes than most universal coverage nations. As I have argued, if we insist on not having a singe payer system, then justice demands that we allow those not insured to treat themselves: http://jetpress.org/v20/walker.htm. For example, the uninsured should be able to prescribe antibiotics for themselves, and be allowed (at least) to pay for medical testing. What we have now is the perfect combination of inefficiency and injustice. Mark Dr. Mark Walker Richard L. Hedden Chair of Advanced Philosophical Studies Department of Philosophy New Mexico State University P.O. Box 30001, MSC 3B Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 USA http://www.nmsu.edu/~philos/mark-walkers-home-page.html On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:55 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > > > > >?1) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does. > > >?2) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare. > > > > >? So as a extropian do you think maybe those top 30 longevity countries > can teach us something? John K Clark > > > > > > I would propose that we estimate what it would cost to have such a system, > then as soon as the government is running a surplus at that level for three > years in a row, we suggest to congress using that consistent surplus to > create such a system. Using the three previous years of enormous surplus > we can at least make a dent in the huge bills we have racked up in the last > 20 years. Deal? > > > > 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: image.png Type: image/png Size: 40573 bytes Desc: not available URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 12:54:05 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:54:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John- As I'm sure you're aware, correlation does not imply causation. This issue is extremely complex and difficult to wade through, and your implication that we should be on a single payer system (I'm not sure what I think on that, but my political leaning immediately recoils at the thought) is not very libertarian. For one thing, the US subsidizes the rest of the world in terms of drug prices: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/ For another, these single payer systems are also going broke, and you inevitably get rationing (which is fine until you're one the short end of that stick). You also effectively get a government centralized entity deciding how to allocate overall healthcare funds to various conditions. I have seen few problems that get better with a centralized bureaucratic entity making the call. You're also discounting genetics, homogenous populations, and other socioeconomic factors including diet that may be influencing longevity numbers. I think it is a good idea to look at what these countries can teach us, and I come away thinking single payer is not a good idea. I do think the current US system is broken though (for many reasons); it doesn't allow markets to effectively price. I find an analogy in the US experiments with deregulating energy prices at the wholesale level but not allowing price to pass through to retail. I don't know if that is a good idea, but you can't have an effective market when one portion of it is allowed to price and the other side is not. On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, John Clark wrote: > The USA spends FAR more on healthcare than any other country on the planet > and has done so for many decades, yet it doesn't seem to be getting much > bang for the buck. In 2016 the USA spends $9451 per-person per-year on > healthcare but is only #31 on the list of countries with the longest lived > citizens; Japan is #1 on the longevity list and spend only $4150 per person > per year, Australia is # 4 and spends $4420, and at #31 is the USA which > spends $9451. Every one of the top 30 longevity countries have 2 things in > common: > > 1) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does. > 2) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare. > > We are extropians and thus are believers in the scientific method, that > means if a theory doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned no matter how > beloved it may be, and that includes political theories. So as a extropian > do you think maybe those top 30 longevity countries can teach us something? > > > 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 Tue Mar 28 13:58:09 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:58:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dylan wrote: I do think the current US system is broken though (for many reasons); it doesn't allow markets to effectively price. --------------------- Why doesn't Congress allow our health agencies to bargain with drug companies over prices? bill w On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > John- > > As I'm sure you're aware, correlation does not imply causation. This > issue is extremely complex and difficult to wade through, and your > implication that we should be on a single payer system (I'm not sure what I > think on that, but my political leaning immediately recoils at the thought) > is not very libertarian. > > For one thing, the US subsidizes the rest of the world in terms of drug > prices: > https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/ > > For another, these single payer systems are also going broke, and you > inevitably get rationing (which is fine until you're one the short end of > that stick). > > You also effectively get a government centralized entity deciding how to > allocate overall healthcare funds to various conditions. I have seen few > problems that get better with a centralized bureaucratic entity making the > call. > > You're also discounting genetics, homogenous populations, and other > socioeconomic factors including diet that may be influencing longevity > numbers. > > I think it is a good idea to look at what these countries can teach us, > and I come away thinking single payer is not a good idea. > > I do think the current US system is broken though (for many reasons); it > doesn't allow markets to effectively price. I find an analogy in the US > experiments with deregulating energy prices at the wholesale level but not > allowing price to pass through to retail. I don't know if that is a good > idea, but you can't have an effective market when one portion of it is > allowed to price and the other side is not. > > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> The USA spends FAR more on healthcare than any other country on the >> planet and has done so for many decades, yet it doesn't seem to be getting >> much bang for the buck. In 2016 the USA spends $9451 per-person per-year on >> healthcare but is only #31 on the list of countries with the longest lived >> citizens; Japan is #1 on the longevity list and spend only $4150 per person >> per year, Australia is # 4 and spends $4420, and at #31 is the USA which >> spends $9451. Every one of the top 30 longevity countries have 2 things in >> common: >> >> 1) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does. >> 2) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare. >> >> We are extropians and thus are believers in the scientific method, that >> means if a theory doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned no matter how >> beloved it may be, and that includes political theories. So as a extropian >> do you think maybe those top 30 longevity countries can teach us something? >> >> >> 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 interzone at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 14:07:50 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:07:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The cynic in me answers because they are profiting with political capital from the current arrangement and have no incentive to do so. Trump has been in favor of forcing them to, but Congress (Republicans in particular) has not stepped up: One of Mr. Trump?s proposals ? to force drug makers to bid for the right to sell their products to Medicare beneficiaries ? has repeatedly failed to attract enough support in Congress, especially among his fellow Republicans. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/health/the-fight-trump-faces-over-drug-prices.html I don't know how much it would help, but I don't see how it could hurt. I think the linked article gives a decent summary of the challenges. I will say that now that Ryancare has failed to pass, you may eventually see Trump extend an olive branch to Democrats to get something like that baked into whatever is proposed next. I don't see them revisiting healthcare anytime soon though. I would expect Trump has moved on to tax reform (which IMO he should have started with in the first place, but that's a topic for a separate thread). On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:58 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Dylan wrote: > I do think the current US system is broken though (for many reasons); it > doesn't allow markets to effectively price. > --------------------- > Why doesn't Congress allow our health agencies to bargain with drug > companies over prices? > > bill w > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > >> John- >> >> As I'm sure you're aware, correlation does not imply causation. This >> issue is extremely complex and difficult to wade through, and your >> implication that we should be on a single payer system (I'm not sure what I >> think on that, but my political leaning immediately recoils at the thought) >> is not very libertarian. >> >> For one thing, the US subsidizes the rest of the world in terms of drug >> prices: >> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/ >> >> For another, these single payer systems are also going broke, and you >> inevitably get rationing (which is fine until you're one the short end of >> that stick). >> >> You also effectively get a government centralized entity deciding how to >> allocate overall healthcare funds to various conditions. I have seen few >> problems that get better with a centralized bureaucratic entity making the >> call. >> >> You're also discounting genetics, homogenous populations, and other >> socioeconomic factors including diet that may be influencing longevity >> numbers. >> >> I think it is a good idea to look at what these countries can teach us, >> and I come away thinking single payer is not a good idea. >> >> I do think the current US system is broken though (for many reasons); it >> doesn't allow markets to effectively price. I find an analogy in the US >> experiments with deregulating energy prices at the wholesale level but not >> allowing price to pass through to retail. I don't know if that is a good >> idea, but you can't have an effective market when one portion of it is >> allowed to price and the other side is not. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:06 PM, John Clark >> wrote: >> >>> The USA spends FAR more on healthcare than any other country on the >>> planet and has done so for many decades, yet it doesn't seem to be getting >>> much bang for the buck. In 2016 the USA spends $9451 per-person per-year on >>> healthcare but is only #31 on the list of countries with the longest lived >>> citizens; Japan is #1 on the longevity list and spend only $4150 per person >>> per year, Australia is # 4 and spends $4420, and at #31 is the USA which >>> spends $9451. Every one of the top 30 longevity countries have 2 things in >>> common: >>> >>> 1) They all spend far less on healthcare than the USA does. >>> 2) Unlike the USA they all have Single Payer Healthcare. >>> >>> We are extropians and thus are believers in the scientific method, that >>> means if a theory doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned no matter how >>> beloved it may be, and that includes political theories. So as a extropian >>> do you think maybe those top 30 longevity countries can teach us something? >>> >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 14:09:41 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:09:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> References: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:55 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > I would propose that we estimate what it would cost to have such a system, > then as soon as the government is running a surplus at that level for three > years in a row, we suggest to congress using that consistent surplus to > create such a system. > ?But Spike, you're implying such a system would cost the country more, but all indications are ? ?it would cost less than half what we spend now, and we'd get better health care too. > ?> ? > Using the three previous years of enormous surplus we can at least make a > dent in the huge bills we have racked up in the last 20 years. ?It hasn't been just the last 20 years, with the exception of the final 3 years of Bill Clinton's administration the USA has run a deficit every year since 1835, and I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of that streak stopping anytime this side of the Singularity. ? ?In a growing economy it would be irresponsible for a government to have a balanced budget, it should run a deficit because in the future when today's debts have to be payed off money will be much cheaper than it is now. And in the years leading to the Singularity the economy will quite certainly be growing. John K Clark ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 14:11:44 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:11:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 March 2017 at 14:58, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Why doesn't Congress allow our health agencies to bargain with drug > companies over prices? > Because Big Pharma and the health insurance companies are the biggest lobby group in Washington. Until you fix the problem of companies buying support in Congress you are not going to fix any other problems. At present the USA appears to have government for the benefit of corporations, not the people. BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 28 14:34:12 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:34:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> Message-ID: <004301d2a7d0$5f05d6a0$1d1183e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:10 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:55 PM, spike > wrote: ?> ?>?I would propose that we estimate what it would cost to have such a system, then as soon as the government is running a surplus at that level for three years in a row, we suggest to congress using that consistent surplus to create such a system. ?>?But Spike, you're implying such a system would cost the country more, but all indications are ? ?it would cost less than half what we spend now, and we'd get better health care too? Not at all. I agree it would cost less. So here?s the plan: run a three consecutive year surplus of the total cost of healthcare now. If we achieve that, then use that money to retire as many of those bonds and other loans the government took out now. Then since we are running a surplus, we start a universal healthcare system that costs less than the surplus, we have money left over to continue retiring the debt we are running up now. Such a deal! I?m in. ?> ?>?Using the three previous years of enormous surplus we can at least make a dent in the huge bills we have racked up in the last 20 years. ?>?It hasn't been just the last 20 years, with the exception of the final 3 years of Bill Clinton's administration the USA has run a deficit every year since 1835, and I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell of that streak stopping anytime this side of the Singularity? Ja you and I agree. The reason we don?t have a single payer system is that the single payer can?t afford it. The Federal government has only income taxes as a source of income. The states on the other hand, can tax anything they want: property, income, sales, whatever they want. So? fifty payer system. This would also have the benefit of collectively identifying the system which works best. States could compare systems and see what works. Further advantage: states must balance their budgets; the Fed does not and cannot, anytime this side of the Singularity. Its failure is as foreseeable as the sunrise. We cannot hand over our healthcare system to that authority. Furthermore, the Federal government should remove all its regulation entirely from healthcare, and let all that be done at the state government level as well. Then we get to see what governmental controls work best with 50 individual laboratories working on it. We would get some workable arrangements out of it. ?>?In a growing economy it would be irresponsible for a government to have a balanced budget, it should run a deficit because in the future when today's debts have to be payed off money will be much cheaper than it is now. And in the years leading to the Singularity the economy will quite certainly be growing?John K Clark John this is where you and I fundamentally part company. I do not feel it is morally justifiable to speculate that the future will be richer and it is my solemn responsibility to spend its wealth. That the future will be more prosperous is my firm belief, but my firm belief might be wrong. The future might be poor. It will be very poor we don?t figure out a way to generate low cost energy, then do it. It will be very poor if we don?t get a handle on wildly growing population, if we don?t figure out a way to control anti-science memes, if we aren?t successful in adapting education, if a lot of things that might well come to pass. By running big deficits, we might be robbing from the poor to give to the rich. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 14:48:00 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:48:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote: As I'm sure you're aware, correlation does not imply causation. This issue > is extremely complex and difficult to wade through, > ?But some things are not complex, some things are simple and clear. For example:? ?1) On a list of the 31 countries with the longest lived citizens the USA is #31. 2) On a list of countries that spend the most on healthcare the USA is #1. 3) Of the 31 countries all have some form of single payer healthcare except for the USA. If it were just one country you could argue it was just a correlation not a causation, but 30 is stretching credulity to the breaking point. > ?> ? > and your implication that we should be on a single payer system (I'm not > sure what I think on that, but my political leaning immediately recoils at > the thought) is not very libertarian. > ?I agree that's not very libertarian and I'm emotionally attached to libertarianism so single payer healthcare ? sort of ?rubs me the wrong way too, but I'm even more emotionally attached to the scientific method so if a theory doesn't fit the facts it MUST be abandoned. No exceptions. And the theory that a single payer healthcare ? system can't work simply doesn't fit the facts.? > ?> ? > I have seen few problems that get better with a centralized bureaucratic > entity making the call. > ?I've seen ?30 countries that do. ?I'm not in love with ? centralized bureaucracy ? anymore than ?you are, but facts are facts and can not be ignored. ?> ? > You're also discounting genetics, homogenous populations, and other > socioeconomic factors including diet that may be influencing longevity > numbers. > ?So those 30 countries are all the same so a single payer healthcare ? system works great for them, but somehow the USA is radically different from every single one of them? I don't believe anyone looking at the facts dispassionately could reach that conclusion. John K Clark ? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 28 14:36:39 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 07:36:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801d2a7d0$b68ee560$23acb020$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare On 28 March 2017 at 14:58, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>... Why doesn't Congress allow our health agencies to bargain with drug companies over prices? >...Because Big Pharma and the health insurance companies are the biggest lobby group in Washington. Until you fix the problem of companies buying support in Congress you are not going to fix any other problems. At present the USA appears to have government for the benefit of corporations, not the people. BillK Ja. I don't see anything in the US Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to make or enforce law regarding drug companies. Proposed solution: have all that done at the state level. spike From interzone at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 14:56:45 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:56:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies for the lack of a detailed reply, but I do not think it is a fact that single payer healthcare systems "work great." They are currently functioning and providing universal coverage. Working great is another story. I'll reiterate that I think the current US system is incredibly problematic. I think you are heavily discounting the rationing effect that is part and parcel of any single payer plan. Do you think that the UK's single payer system is working great? If so, what dispassionate metrics are you basing this on? On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:48 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > ?> ? >> You're also discounting genetics, homogenous populations, and other >> socioeconomic factors including diet that may be influencing longevity >> numbers. >> > > ?So those 30 countries are all the same so a single payer healthcare > ? system works great for them, but somehow > the USA is radically different from every single one of them? I don't > believe anyone looking at the facts dispassionately could reach that > conclusion. > > John K Clark ? > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 15:13:01 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:13:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 28 March 2017 at 15:56, Dylan Distasio wrote: > Apologies for the lack of a detailed reply, but I do not think it is a fact > that single payer healthcare systems "work great." They are currently > functioning and providing universal coverage. Working great is another > story. I'll reiterate that I think the current US system is incredibly > problematic. I think you are heavily discounting the rationing effect that > is part and parcel of any single payer plan. Do you think that the UK's > single payer system is working great? If so, what dispassionate metrics are > you basing this on? > The present US system has rationing by price and apparently many more people are dying by this system of rationing than in 30 other countries. Many life-saving treatments are actually quite cheap, but out of reach of many in the US. Entering the US medical care system runs up astronomical bills very quickly. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 15:22:57 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:22:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: spike wrote Ja. I don't see anything in the US Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to make or enforce law regarding drug companies. Proposed solution: have all that done at the state level. --------- But Spike, the gov. buys drugs for Medicare and Medicaid. Why can't they negotiate on those? p.s - you don't want to leave things to states like mine because they are dysfunctional bill w On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:13 AM, BillK wrote: > On 28 March 2017 at 15:56, Dylan Distasio wrote: > > Apologies for the lack of a detailed reply, but I do not think it is a > fact > > that single payer healthcare systems "work great." They are currently > > functioning and providing universal coverage. Working great is another > > story. I'll reiterate that I think the current US system is incredibly > > problematic. I think you are heavily discounting the rationing effect > that > > is part and parcel of any single payer plan. Do you think that the UK's > > single payer system is working great? If so, what dispassionate metrics > are > > you basing this on? > > > > The present US system has rationing by price and apparently many more > people are dying by this system of rationing than in 30 other > countries. > > Many life-saving treatments are actually quite cheap, but out of reach > of many in the US. Entering the US medical care system runs up > astronomical bills very quickly. > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 15:24:23 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:24:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > ?> ? > but I do not think it is a fact that single payer healthcare systems "work > great." > ?30 countries spend about half what the USA does on healthcare and they live longer, a logical person with no ax to grind would have to admit that's pretty great compared with the USA. ? > ?> ? > Do you think that the UK's single payer system is working great? > ?Yes.? ?> ? > If so, what dispassionate metrics are you basing this on? > ?The average UK citizen lives to be 81.2 years old and spends $4003 a year on healthcare, the average USA citizen lives to be 79.3 years old and spends $9451 on healthcare. I think you are heavily discounting the rationing effect that is part and > parcel of any single payer plan. ?Rationing be damned. The bottom line is they spend less than half as much and live longer. ?If a theory doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. No exceptions. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 15:35:57 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:35:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since you seem to be hung up on the longevity metric, I would remind you that correlation does not imply causation, and that one stat you're bandying about does not tell the whole picture. The issue is more complicated than that. As I mentioned, they are also profiting from the US subsidizing their drugs. There is also the question of how outcomes compare for individual diseases across these nations, and what treatments are covered. It is not as simple as saying the AVERAGE citizen lives longer and on the surface it costs less, so it is an open and shut case, single payer wins and is the reason they are living longer. If you truly believe that, I guess I don't have much else to say on the topic. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:24 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> but I do not think it is a fact that single payer healthcare systems >> "work great." >> > > ?30 countries spend about half what the USA does on healthcare and they > live longer, a logical person with no ax to grind would have to admit > that's pretty great compared with the USA. ? > > > >> ?> ? >> Do you think that the UK's single payer system is working great? >> > > ?Yes.? > > ?> ? >> If so, what dispassionate metrics are you basing this on? >> > > ?The average UK citizen lives to be 81.2 years old and spends $4003 a > year on healthcare, the average USA citizen lives to be 79.3 years old and spends > $9451 on healthcare. > > I think you are heavily discounting the rationing effect that is part and >> parcel of any single payer plan. > > > ?Rationing be damned. The bottom line is they spend less than half as > much and live longer. ?If a theory doesn't fit the facts it must be > abandoned. No exceptions. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 15:36:31 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:36:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E7F4F38-1334-4FF5-87A4-635FB72B9E6A@gmail.com> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:13 AM, BillK wrote: >> On 28 March 2017 at 15:56, Dylan Distasio wrote: >> Apologies for the lack of a detailed reply, but I do not think it is a fact >> that single payer healthcare systems "work great." They are currently >> functioning and providing universal coverage. Working great is another >> story. I'll reiterate that I think the current US system is incredibly >> problematic. I think you are heavily discounting the rationing effect that >> is part and parcel of any single payer plan. Do you think that the UK's >> single payer system is working great? If so, what dispassionate metrics are >> you basing this on? > > The present US system has rationing by price and apparently many more > people are dying by this system of rationing than in 30 other countries. True, though you have to ask why the price structure in the US is that way versus those other countries. And part of that difference is due to US government intervention in healthcare both through through subsidies and regulations. > Many life-saving treatments are actually quite cheap, but out of reach > of many in the US. Entering the US medical care system runs up > astronomical bills very quickly. One reason for medical tourism, no? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 15:52:19 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:52:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:24 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote: >> >> ?> ?but I do not think it is a fact that single payer healthcare systems "work great." > > ?30 countries spend about half what the USA does on healthcare and they live longer, a logical person with no ax to grind would have to admit that's pretty great compared with the USA. ? > >> ?> ?Do you think that the UK's single payer system is working great? > > ?Yes.? > >> ?> ?If so, what dispassionate metrics are you basing this on? > > ?The average UK citizen lives to be 81.2 years old and spends $4003 a year on healthcare, the average USA citizen lives to be 79.3 years old and spends $9451 on healthcare. > >> I think you are heavily discounting the rationing effect that is part and parcel of any single payer plan. > > ?Rationing be damned. The bottom line is they spend less than half as much and live longer. ?If a theory doesn't fit the facts it must be abandoned. No exceptions. Wouldn't one approach to teasing out causation here to be to ask about how life expectancy changed and differed between these nations over time? It might be, for example, that nation X has always had a longer life expectancy than nation Y -- regardless of adopting different healthcare policies. (You'd probably have to factor in the two world wars, which definitely had an impact on life expectancy in many nations, so data from the 01910s and 01940s would have to be handled with care. Maybe start with 01950. UK's NHS only came into play in the late 1940s, so it seems a natural place to start, no? Well, for UK-US comparisons.) If you don't do historical trend, then you run the risk of comparing unlike to unlike. Also, what about nations that have lower life expectancy than the US? Do they all lack single payer systems? 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 Mar 28 15:54:24 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 08:54:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ac01d2a7db$9345b060$b9d11120$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:23 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare spike wrote Ja. I don't see anything in the US Constitution that authorizes the Federal government to make or enforce law regarding drug companies. Proposed solution: have all that done at the state level. --------- >?But Spike, the gov. buys drugs for Medicare and Medicaid. Why can't they negotiate on those? They should negotiate that. Then instead of our current absurd system for licensing a new drug to market, the negotiations would be based on the safety and efficacy of the drug as determined by the buyer, pretty much the way they buy everything else. >?p.s - you don't want to leave things to states like mine because they are dysfunctional. bill w Ja, the US federal government is dysfunctional too: it does not and cannot balance the budget. Propose that when it starts running a surplus, the surplus be used for subsidizing medical systems. In a family, when there is a budget shortfall, something doesn?t get bought, a vacation trip or dinner at the local establishment, something expendable that family goes without. Something has to be not paid for, ja? Well OK, in the Federal government, what is analogous to whatever it is in a family that is cut first? How about setting up a system where we clearly identify something that would be nice to have if we run a surplus, then cut it first? That would incentivize the Fed to cut the silliness, eliminate waste, trim the military and so forth, so we can have whatever is first on the chopping block, ja? So? easy solution: have the Fed subsidize medical care and keep it first on the chopping block, done. Of course it would always be cut off completely because the Fed does not and cannot balance its budget. If it couldn?t do it during the prosperous last couple decades, in relatively peaceful times and low interest, how is it to do it now? So? states step up to the plate. BillW, more to your point: sick people leave states where the medical system is inadequate. My parents lived in Florida most of their lives, but bought a cattle ranch in Oregon when they were in their mid 60s. They lived out there for about 6 years, but got steadily sicker the whole time. They ended up moving back to Florida, where the medical care was far better. We know the fifty payer system isn?t perfect or really even good, but it is better than passing the bill to an organization which cannot pay. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 28 16:01:20 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 09:01:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dylan Distasio ?The average UK citizen lives to be 81.2 years old and spends $4003 a year on healthcare, the average USA citizen lives to be 79.3 years old and spends $9451 on healthcare?John K Clark How do we account for the ongoing drug wars in Chicago and other major US cities? If a drug gangster shoots another 19 year old drug gangster, does that average in to life expectancy? Why? What if a drug gang captures a member of a rival gang, takes him to the parking lot of the local hospital, shoot him, he crawls up to the ER, racks up huge bills. How does that count? Alternative: take a group of living 60 yr olds, the kind of people unlikely to perish in these drug wars. How do those compare between those countries? Another observation: it is meaningless to compare socialist countries with capitalist countries, because socialist countries can theoretically raise more funds at the federal level than capitalist governments can. The US government is already very close to the maximum revenue it can generate. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 17:11:22 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:11:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Dylan Distasio wrote: ?> ? > Since you seem to be hung up on the longevity metric, > ?Yes silly me, I think living longer is often a rather good idea, especially if it cost less than dying sooner. > ?> ? > I would remind you that correlation does not imply causation, > ?Yes and it's just a coincidence that ?the top 30 countries in longevity have a simple single payer plan that cost half as much as the USA's super complex and confusing plan, and it's also just a coincidence that those 30 countries live longer too. If you believe that there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. > ?> ? > and that one stat you're bandying about does not tell the whole picture. > ?Why the hell not? What statistic is more important than cost versus life expectancy? ? ?> ? > It is not as simple as saying the AVERAGE citizen lives longer and on the > surface it costs less, so it is an open and shut case, single payer wins > and is the reason they are living longer. If you truly believe that, I > guess I don't have much else to say on the topic. > ?I don't ?think anybody who valued the scientific method more than they valued ANY political ideology would write the above. Sometimes a rational person must be ruthless, so I will show a theory that doesn't fit the facts no mercy regardless of the emotional attachment I may have for it. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Mar 28 18:25:03 2017 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:25:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <58DAAA7F.7030008@yahoo.com> It occurs to me to wonder if there are differences in the actual cost of medical treatments and devices, etc., in these different countries. For example, does a stethoscope cost the same in Sweden as it does in the USA, and if not, why? Ben Zaiboc From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 20:04:12 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:04:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> > On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 10:18 AM John Clark wrote: > > ?> ?It is not as simple as saying the AVERAGE citizen lives longer >> and on the surface it costs less, so it is an open and shut >> case, single payer wins and is the reason they are living >> longer. If you truly believe that, I guess I don't have much >> else to say on the topic.> ?> I don't ?think anybody who valued the scientific method > more than they valued ANY political ideology would write > the above. People who valued the scientific method wouldn't want to stop with a simple statistic wrenched from its context. As I asked before, you'd have to do a little more analysis, such as looking at historical rates of longevity. I haven't done the analysis, but you wouldn't want to bet people's lives on just taking a statistic out of context, would you? Have you also looked at nations that have shorter than the US life expectancy to see if they all don't have single payer systems? > Sometimes a rational person must be ruthless, so I will show a > theory that doesn't fit the facts no mercy regardless of the > emotional attachment I may have for it. Actually, have you ever worked in a lab or done any data analysis? If you have, then you know you have to be careful with drawing conclusions. There are things like sampling errors and experimental error. This is why when you run a test, you don't always assume something that doesn't fit a theory must needs refute that theory. (Sure, this leaves room for mischief -- such as someone saying it's an error in the data and not their pet theory when things go wrong, but it's by no means a simple matter, especially in complicated cases like this, to say X causes Y.) I'd also be careful of accusing people of being emotionally attached or ideologically driven when they disagree with you. That rarely leads to a fruitful discussion. Instead, it just leads down the rabbit hole of accusations and counter-accusations. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 20:05:34 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:05:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> On Monday, March 6, 2017 8:01 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> Libertarianism is on the Far Left.? I question whether >> John ever was a libertarian in any meaningful sense. > > ?A better way to think about these things is to visualize > two dimensions: one going left to right (conservative - > liberal), and one running up and down (authoritarian? - > libertarian). I like the one at politicalcompass.org As should've been obvious, I'm not only aware of the two-dimensional chart, but I disagree with it. The original Left-Right distinction was between freedom and authority. Those on the Left were against authority, particular but not exclusively monarchism. (It simply originated in a time when monarchy was the dominant form of government.) > Another issue: there is no such thing as a one size fits > all philosophy. If we have not learned anything from the > past few years, it's that adhering strictly to one position, > like the tea party, is destructive of normal compromise > and give and take. Radical anything is not going to work. Bullshit. Most so called radicals are not radical at all. Anyone operating inside a major political party in the US isn't much of a radical. (I get it. The term might be relative. Someone who merely wants to lower the prison term for cocaine possession might be seen as a radical in some circles -- rather idiotic circles I hope no one here travels in. That's not what mean here, and you know it.:) And the actual libertarian position is a radical one. It's a radical view that no one should have authority over anyone else -- i.e., that slavery is wrong even when it's watered down and even when the slaves are allowed to petition their masters. I'm not much of a fan of the band, but the problem with mainstream politics is it fits lyrics from the Marilyn Manson: Slave never dreams to be free Slave only dreams to be King > I also agree with John - just say what you believe and leave > labels out of it. One of my sons thought he was conservative > most of his life, and he found out that he espoused more liberal > ideas than conservative - and he resented it in a way. I > teased him about being a liberal and he got mad! John was the one who brought up the label. I was responding to his use of it. So if you want to scold people about using labels, please start with him. Sincerely, Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 20:10:03 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:10:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <00ac01d2a7db$9345b060$b9d11120$@att.net> References: <00ac01d2a7db$9345b060$b9d11120$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > the US federal government is dysfunctional too: it does not and cannot > balance the budget. > > ?Spike, doesn't the FACT that the US federal government has failed to balance the budget nearly every year since 1835 make you question the theory that they must balance the budget or they are dysfunctional? > ?> ? > In a family, when there is a budget shortfall, something doesn?t get bought ?Or they get a loan. Most families can't afford to pay cash for their house, and yet they still manage to live in a house somehow. In the mid 1970s INTEL handmade in a lab a new gadget called a "microprocessor", they could have continued to make them in the lab and tried to sell them for a million dollars a chip or they could have massed produced them in a factory and sold them for $10 a chip. They chose the second option, but to do so they had to go into debt, they had to go to a bank and get a loan to pay for the expensive factory. I think you would agree INTEL made the correct choice. ? ?> ? > I do not feel it is morally justifiable to speculate that the future will > be richer and it is my solemn responsibility to spend its wealth. That the > future will be more prosperous is my firm belief, but my firm belief might > be wrong. ?Yes we might be wrong, but if we waited until we were absolutely certain what the eventual outcome of our actions would be we'd be unable to perform any actions at all about anything; so all we can do is play the odds and place our bets to the best of our judgement.? ?I think it is a very good bet that technology will improve and a even better bet that if technology improves then the total amount of wealth in the world will increase.? The big uncertainty is how all that new wealth will get divided up. ?>? > The future might be poor. The future could contain poor people even if the total amount of wealth in the world increases. It ?'s? a good bet that if the number of poor people gets too large revolution will result and civilization will collapse, and it's a even better bet that if ? civilization collapses everybody will end up being poor. > ?> ? > By running big deficits, we might be robbing from the poor to give to the > rich. ?We might be, but we're probably not. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 20:44:04 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:44:04 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 3:16 am, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Dylan Distasio > > > > ?The average UK citizen lives to be 81.2 years old and spends $4003 a > year on healthcare, the average USA citizen lives to be 79.3 years old and > spends $9451 on healthcare?John K Clark > > > > > > > > How do we account for the ongoing drug wars in Chicago and other major US > cities? If a drug gangster shoots another 19 year old drug gangster, does > that average in to life expectancy? Why? What if a drug gang captures a > member of a rival gang, takes him to the parking lot of the local hospital, > shoot him, he crawls up to the ER, racks up huge bills. How does that > count? > > > > Alternative: take a group of living 60 yr olds, the kind of people > unlikely to perish in these drug wars. How do those compare between those > countries? > > > > Another observation: it is meaningless to compare socialist countries with > capitalist countries, because socialist countries can theoretically raise > more funds at the federal level than capitalist governments can. The US > government is already very close to the maximum revenue it can generate. > How? They can increase the income tax to 90% if they want. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 28 20:54:26 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:54:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01d2a7db$9345b060$b9d11120$@att.net> Message-ID: <009601d2a805$7d7d1d20$78775760$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 1:10 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, spike > wrote: ?> ?>?In a family, when there is a budget shortfall, something doesn?t get bought ?>?Or they get a loan?In the mid 1970s INTEL handmade in a lab a new gadget called a "microprocessor", they could have continued to make them in the lab and tried to sell them for a million dollars a chip or they could have massed produced them in a factory and sold them for $10 a chip. They chose the second option, but to do so they had to go into debt, they had to go to a bank and get a loan to pay for the expensive factory. I think you would agree INTEL made the correct choice? They sold stock John. I am all in favor of that method of raising money to do ventures. ? ?> >? I do not feel it is morally justifiable to speculate that the future will be richer and it is my solemn responsibility to spend its wealth. That the future will be more prosperous is my firm belief, but my firm belief might be wrong. ?>?Yes we might be wrong, but if we waited until we were absolutely certain what the eventual outcome of our actions would be we'd be unable to perform any actions at all about anything; so all we can do is play the odds and place our bets to the best of our judgement? The problem with that philosophy is that we gain now and risk the future?s wealth. There are plenty of ways we can build the future without running up ruinous debt. We can?t assume the future will be wealthier than we are, even given technological advances. ? >? The big uncertainty is how all that new wealth will get divided up? John K Clark? Ja that isn?t clear to me either. Stockholders with the right investments will get most of it. Stockholders with the wrong investments will lose out. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 21:08:08 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:08:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> Message-ID: >On 28 March 2017 at 21:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 3:16 am, spike wrote: >> Another observation: it is meaningless to compare socialist countries with >> capitalist countries, because socialist countries can theoretically raise >> more funds at the federal level than capitalist governments can. The US >> government is already very close to the maximum revenue it can generate. > > > > How? They can increase the income tax to 90% if they want. > If they did then government revenue would reduce. High taxation changes people's behavior. See Laffer Curve - BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 28 20:58:07 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:58:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <009b01d2a806$00cfe360$026faa20$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 3:16 am, spike > wrote: >>?Another observation: it is meaningless to compare socialist countries with capitalist countries, because socialist countries can theoretically raise more funds at the federal level than capitalist governments can. The US government is already very close to the maximum revenue it can generate? spike >?How? They can increase the income tax to 90% if they want. -- Stathis Papaioannou Ja, suppose it does. Then what happens? Surprise! The revenue goes down, because those who make a lot of money go elsewhere or go out of business. What?s the point, if one is just working for the government? There is an optimal tax structure for maximizing government revenue. No one knows for sure what that is, but I can assure you it is nowhere near 90%. It is probably pretty close to where it is now. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 21:28:50 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:28:50 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <009b01d2a806$00cfe360$026faa20$@att.net> References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> <009b01d2a806$00cfe360$026faa20$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 8:13 am, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stathis Papaioannou > > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare > > > > > > On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 3:16 am, spike wrote: > > >>?Another observation: it is meaningless to compare socialist countries > with capitalist countries, because socialist countries can theoretically > raise more funds at the federal level than capitalist governments can. The > US government is already very close to the maximum revenue it can generate? > spike > > > > > > >?How? They can increase the income tax to 90% if they want. > > -- > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > > Ja, suppose it does. Then what happens? Surprise! The revenue goes > down, because those who make a lot of money go elsewhere or go out of > business. What?s the point, if one is just working for the government? > > > > There is an optimal tax structure for maximizing government revenue. No > one knows for sure what that is, but I can assure you it is nowhere near > 90%. It is probably pretty close to where it is now. > But that applies to state taxes as well. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 21:38:54 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:38:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > ?> ? > As I asked before, you'd have to do a little more analysis, such as > looking at historical rates of longevity. ?The USA has gone backward. In 1960 the USA had the 16th longest lived people, in 2015 they had the 31th longest lived. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/history-of-life-expectancy.? > ?>? > you wouldn't want to bet people's lives on just taking a statistic out of > context, would you? > ?The average cost verses average ?life expectancy is not a out of context ? statistic, and yes I'd bet my life on that.? > ?> ? > Have you also looked at nations that have shorter than the US life > expectancy to see if they all don't have single payer systems? > ?What could we learn from that? You'd expect countries that spend less on healthcare would have shorter lived citizens ?,? and every country in the world spends less than the USA, the ?big ? surprise is the 30 countries that spend significantly less but live longer, and it is from them we should look. ? ?> ? > I'd also be careful of accusing people of being emotionally attached or > ideologically driven when they disagree with you. > ?Be honest Dan, if the 30 single payer countries I mentioned spent twice as much on healthcare as the USA and yet their citizens had shorted lives than the USA would you be complaining about sampling errors ? and? ? ? experimental ? ? bias? We both know you wouldn't. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 28 21:32:55 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:32:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> <009b01d2a806$00cfe360$026faa20$@att.net> Message-ID: <00cd01d2a80a$dd777ae0$986670a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou There is an optimal tax structure for maximizing government revenue. No one knows for sure what that is, but I can assure you it is nowhere near 90%. It is probably pretty close to where it is now. But that applies to state taxes as well? -- Stathis Papaioannou Ja, sure does. States must compete with each other. So no state can create a utopia, and even if it did somehow, it wouldn?t be utopia for long: people from the other states would pile in. Conclusion: government does not have a successful state-run medical system because it cannot create one. Our best bet is to find the best solution. That is done by having 50 different experiments going simultaneously. We find the best one and the rest do likewise. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 22:03:02 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:03:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Most so called radicals are not radical at all. Anyone operating inside a > major political party in the US isn't much of a radical. ?Then no radical has had power in the entire history of the USA , and a political radical that is unable to make a radical political change isn't much of a radical. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 22:14:46 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:14:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <00cd01d2a80a$dd777ae0$986670a0$@att.net> References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> <009b01d2a806$00cfe360$026faa20$@att.net> <00cd01d2a80a$dd777ae0$986670a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:32 PM, spike wrote: > > > ? > Our best bet is to find the best solution. That is done by having 50 > different experiments going simultaneously. We find the best one and the > rest do likewise. ?Let's be practical, ? ?by the time the results of those new 50 experiments come in most of us will be dead from old age, but we already have the experimental results from 30 countries and the results are very clear. I'm certain none of those 30 countries have the perfect healthcare solution, but the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 22:37:39 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:37:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> Message-ID: <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> On Mar 28, 2017, at 3:03 PM, John Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> ?> ?Most so called radicals are not radical at all. Anyone operating inside a major political party in the US isn't much of a radical. > > ?Then no radical has had power in the entire history of the USA , and a political radical that is unable to make a radical political change isn't much of a radical. Two points: 1) You presume the only way to influence things in the direction of radical change is to be in power. (I take it you mean to be in office. In other words, no one outside of those in elected office has any actual control or influence over anything. If that's your position, then why do you bother talking about politics? You're not in office, right?) 2) I was speaking about in our times. Really, I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone today in the two major parties being a radical. Sure, someone might call them a radical -- e.g., Sanders. Yet, to stick with that one example, it seems rather tepid in terms of radicalism. Really, someone who probably would've expanded the welfare state a little and maybe not be as bellicose as his predecessor is a radical? 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 Mar 28 22:39:30 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:39:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> <009b01d2a806$00cfe360$026faa20$@att.net> <00cd01d2a80a$dd777ae0$986670a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <012901d2a814$2aabcc40$800364c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:15 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:32 PM, spike > wrote: > ? Our best bet is to find the best solution. That is done by having 50 different experiments going simultaneously. We find the best one and the rest do likewise. ?Let's be practical, ? ?by the time the results of those new 50 experiments come in most of us will be dead from old age, but we already have the experimental results from 30 countries and the results are very clear. I'm certain none of those 30 countries have the perfect healthcare solution, but the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good. ? John K Clark Ja, that argument ignores the fact that the Federal government cannot balance the budget now. So adding more expenses will not balance it; just the opposite. Single payer advocates never explain what happens when the medics send the bills to the single payer then don?t get paid. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 28 22:56:39 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:56:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2017, at 2:38 PM, John Clark wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> ?> ?As I asked before, you'd have to do a little more analysis, such as looking at historical rates of longevity. > > ?The USA has gone backward. In 1960 Note the changes in medical legislation from 01956 onward. Would you say that has nothing to do with this? > the USA had the 16th longest lived people, in 2015 they had the 31th longest lived. > > http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/history-of-life-expectancy.? Was there more or less federal involvement in healthcare before 01960? If you're going to use simplistic reasoning here, then please use it across the board. ;) Also, I'm saying we look at all the nations under discussion. If you want to try to figure out causes, don't you agree we need to do this? Or is it just find the statistic you like and stick with that? Do you want to do data analysis or just do pretend science by factoid? >> ?>?you wouldn't want to bet people's lives on just taking a statistic out of context, would you? > > ?The average cost verses average ?life expectancy is not a out of context? statistic, and yes I'd bet my life on that.? You can bet your life on it, though the problem here, for me, is betting everyone else's life and freedom on it. (I know you'll misread this too. I'm not arguing the US system is free. It's definitely one of huge government intervention. In many ways, more than many other Western nations.) >> ?> ?Have you also looked at nations that have shorter than the US life expectancy to see if they all don't have single payer systems? > > ?What could we learn from that? You'd expect countries that spend less on healthcare would have shorter lived citizens?,? and every country in the world spends less than the USA, the ?big ?surprise is the 30 countries that spend significantly less but live longer, and it is from them we should look. ? My point is you have to look at more than just tote factoid. In this case, you'd have to make sure you're comparing like to like... Let me try another example that you'll ignore, but others might benefit from. Smoking rates are lower in the US than in Japan. The Japanese life expectancy is higher. Would you argue we should get US-Americans to smoke more? I hope not. (I'm not, for the record, saying the cases are exactly the same. The presumption is smoking causing mortality and more healthcare causes more health. The problem in both cases is that other things cause mortality and changes in health.) >> ?> ?I'd also be careful of accusing people of being emotionally attached or ideologically driven when they disagree with you. > > ?Be honest Dan, if the 30 single payer countries I mentioned spent twice as much on healthcare as the USA and yet their citizens had shorted lives than the USA would you be complaining about sampling errors? and?? ?experimental?? bias? We both know you wouldn't. ? To be honest, John, it's not entirely honest on your part to avoid my questions based on how you feel I might have answered were the data different. In a word, you're sidestepping in inconvenient questions. If you're only interested in pretending you're objective, logical, and scientific here, please continue to attack others rather than answer substantive issues they raise. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 00:51:51 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:51:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ? >> ?>>? >> The USA has gone backward. In 1960 > > > ?> ? > Note the changes in medical legislation from 01956 onward. Would you say > that has nothing to do with this? > ?Obviously not, if I thought otherwise I would not have mentioned it as this thread is about medical legislation. ? > ?> ? > Do you want to do data analysis or just do pretend science by factoid? > ?Factoid?? We're talking about the results of a experiment that lasted decades involved about a billion people and cost trillions of dollars, and the results are clear as a bell; like it or not single payer countries get more bang for their buck, they live longer and spend less, a lot less. As a libertarian I wish the facts could have produced a different conclusion but reality doesn't give a damn what I prefer. ?> ? > My point is you have to look at more than just tote factoid. > Factoid my ass! ? > In this case, you'd have to make sure you're comparing like to like. > ?Of those 30 countries you can't ?find one that is anything like the USA? Are Canadians a different species? > . > ?> ? > Let me try another example that you'll ignore, but others might benefit > from. > ? ? > Smoking rates are lower in the US than in Japan. > ?Slightly lower that's true. The smoking in the USA has dropped a lot in recent years, from 20.9% in 2005 to 16.8% ?in 2015 ? vs 19.3% in ?Japan. ? ? > ?> ? > The Japanese life expectancy is higher. > ?I know, 83.1 years vs 78.8, yet the Japanese spend only $4150 on health with their single payer plan and the USA spends $ 9405 ? with its convoluted mess. This is not a subtle difference that can be explained away as a rounding error. > Would you argue we should get US-Americans to smoke more? > ?No, but if all 30 of the longer lived countries did I most certainly would. ? ? >> ?>> ? >> Be honest Dan, if the 30 single payer countries I mentioned spent twice >> as much on healthcare as the USA and yet their citizens had shorted lives >> than the USA would you be complaining about >> ? >> sampling errors >> ? and? >> ? ? >> experimental >> ? >> ? bias? We both know you wouldn't. ? >> > > ?> ? > To be honest, John, it's not entirely honest on your part to avoid my > questions based on how you feel I might have answered were the data > different. > ?? > In a word, > you're sidestepping in inconvenient questions. > ?I don't know which question of yours I've sidestepped, but I ?know of a question of mine ?that ? you have ? sidestepped? : if the 30 single payer countries I mentioned spent twice as much on healthcare as the USA and yet their citizens had ?shorter ? lives than the USA would you be complaining about ? sampling errors ? and ? experimental ? bias? ? John K Clark? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 01:04:40 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:04:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Dan TheBookMan ?> ? > I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone today in the two major parties being > a radical. ?That may be a good thing. ? I'm hard-pressed to think of any ? radical who came to power in any country ?where the end result was positive; except maybe George Washington. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 01:27:09 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:27:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John- I realize I said I would likely not respond to your bullying close minded replies (sound like anyone in US politics you profess to despise?), but this being the internet, I can't help myself. Have you even done a cursory amount of digging before proclaiming single payer the best thing since sliced bread. To answer your question in terms of more important stats, there are plenty more of them if you're in the wrong bucket. You don't even take the time to distinguish between a system like Canada's which is single payer insurance and a system like the UK where it is full socialized medicine. You have not touched at all upon how long the waits are for various procedures, what survival rates are across various diseases, etc. I'm not sure why you even care about any of this since we're all going to be dust in a nuclear winter within the next ~4 years anyways according to your previous "facts." Is the below chart just another meaningless stat or is there perhaps a more nuanced view required to have an intelligent discussion on this topic. If I was Scottish and ended up with prostate cancer, I would certainly believe there was. [image: CONCORD Scotland US] I'm not defending the current US healthcare system as superior, merely attempting to demonstrate that your pounding of the drum for single payer care is overly simplistic at best. I'm sure the epidemiologists and policy makers would be happy to know that you have discovered the one simple stat that will show us the way forward. I'm glad you don't care about wait times for procedures, and are entirely willing to discount that ~90% of Canadians live close enough to the US to get private care if they don't want to wait in the lines for it north of the border for certain procedures, but I would again state that you are attempting to unreasonably extrapolate national health care policy from one stat and a correlation. This is not how good science is done. Ironically, the current POTUS agrees with your stance. If he had his druthers based on comments during the debate, we would be single payer. He thinks these other systems are bigly also. I wonder how you feel about that. On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 1:11 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > > ?> ? >> Since you seem to be hung up on the longevity metric, >> > > ?Yes silly me, I think living longer is often a rather good idea, > especially if it cost less than dying sooner. > > >> ?> ? >> I would remind you that correlation does not imply causation, >> > > ?Yes and it's just a coincidence that ?the top 30 countries in longevity > have a simple single payer plan that cost half as much as the USA's super > complex and confusing plan, and it's also just a coincidence that those 30 > countries live longer too. > > If you believe that there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. > > >> ?> ? >> and that one stat you're bandying about does not tell the whole picture. >> > > ?Why the hell not? What statistic is more important than cost versus life > expectancy? ? > > ?> ? >> It is not as simple as saying the AVERAGE citizen lives longer and on the >> surface it costs less, so it is an open and shut case, single payer wins >> and is the reason they are living longer. If you truly believe that, I >> guess I don't have much else to say on the topic. >> > > ?I don't ?think anybody who valued the scientific method more than they > valued ANY political ideology would write the above. Sometimes a rational > person must be ruthless, so I will show a theory that doesn't fit the facts > no mercy regardless of the emotional attachment I may have for it. > > John K Clark > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Wed Mar 29 01:37:28 2017 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:37:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm not responding to any one message in this thread, but I found this timely analysis which speaks to many of the things said here: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-27/america-is-getting-richer-and-sicker For example: "Per capita gross domestic product is much higher in the U.S. than in the other major developed economies, and no one really seems to be catching up. Life expectancy, on the other hand, is lower in the U.S. than in those same peer countries -- and the gap has been growing." "I was inspired to make the GDP chart above by Harvard University economist Martin Feldstein's recent paper, "Why Is Growth Better in the United States than in Other Industrial Countries?" His main answer: The welfare state has grown in the United States, but much less than it has grown in Europe. And the intellectual climate in the United States is much more supportive of capitalism." "The pharmaceutical industry alone had 1,400 lobbyists in Washington in 2014. American health care does a poor job of delivering health, but is exquisitely designed as an inequality machine, commanding an ever-larger share of G.D.P. and funneling resources to the top of the income distribution." "Suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol-related liver diseases have been the biggest drivers of the mortality increase, and these problems have been concentrated among those without college degrees." "And countries with those big welfare states that Feldstein decries seem to have done a better job of maintaining living standards than the U.S. has. If he's right that welfare states slow growth, then the U.S. has made a possibly reasonable tradeoff. If he's wrong (and there are economists who argue that real-world welfare states have been a "free lunch"), then we've just been shooting ourselves in the foot." -Henry From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 01:47:37 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:47:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2017, at 6:04 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Dan TheBookMan >> ?> ? I'm hard-pressed to think of anyone today in the two major parties being a radical. > > ?That may be a good thing. ?I'm hard-pressed to think of any? radical who came to power in any country ?where the end result was positive; except maybe George Washington. Slaveholding George Washington wasn't a radical. He was an elitist basically chosen because he wouldn't rock the boat against the upper classes in the US. Had history been slightly different -- for those who actually read history -- Washington might have simply ended up as an officer in the British military. That was childhood dream. Even in the context of American politics in the 01780s, Washington was no radical. We can maybe credit him for not being as harsh as other elitists (Hamilton comes to mind), especially in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. (Washington not being bloodthirsty like Hamilton didn't call for executions.) Also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't about seizing power. It's about dismantling power. It always is funny in a way that makes me want to puke how self-proclaimed libertarians don't know this. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 01:47:39 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 01:47:39 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <012901d2a814$2aabcc40$800364c0$@att.net> References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> <009b01d2a806$00cfe360$026faa20$@att.net> <00cd01d2a80a$dd777ae0$986670a0$@att.net> <012901d2a814$2aabcc40$800364c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 9:41 am, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 3:15 PM > > > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare > > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:32 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > > > ? > > Our best bet is to find the best solution. That is done by having 50 > different experiments going simultaneously. We find the best one and the > rest do likewise. > > > > ?Let's be practical, ? > > ?by the time the results of those new 50 experiments come in most of us > will be dead from old age, but we already have the experimental results > from 30 countries and the results are very clear. I'm certain none of those > 30 countries have the perfect healthcare solution, but the perfect > shouldn't be the enemy of the good. ? > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > Ja, that argument ignores the fact that the Federal government cannot > balance the budget now. So adding more expenses will not balance it; just > the opposite. Single payer advocates never explain what happens when the > medics send the bills to the single payer then don?t get paid. > In the case of Greece, they stop providing or limit the services, and then it reverts to services for those who can pay. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 02:04:30 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:04:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dylan Distasio wrote: ?> ? > Is the below chart just another meaningless stat ?No it's not a meaningless stat, but obviously comparing the outcomes of one disease in 2 countries is not nearly as meaningful as comparing the overall life expectancy of the 2 countries if you're interested in health policy, let alone comparing it with 30 other countries. And it's not even 2 countries, Scotland is only part of the UK. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 29 02:29:28 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:29:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-27/america-is-getting-richer -and-sicker "Suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol-related liver diseases have been the biggest drivers of the mortality increase, and these problems have been concentrated among those without college degrees." -Henry Ja I wondered about that. If we say we are going backward it sounds like life expectancies are going down in the US. That isn't right, life expectancies are still rising. But if we argue they are rising faster elsewhere, I must ask how we account for young men shooting each other. Why should that count in life expectancy? And suicide, how do we account for young people who listen to the horrifying garbage played over the radio? Compare that to the fun (if vapid) rock and roll of our misspent youth, and is there any wonder they slay themselves? Dopers and drunks perish a lot, but I just don't see that as a failing of the healthcare system. We sit on our butts way too much, because most jobs are that now. That is not exactly a shortcoming of our medical system. An average earner can buy a stock motorcycle which can go 190 mph for two months wages. The new artificial heroin isn't the medics' fault. A better comparison of the systems would be to take a group of 70 yr olds here vs elsewhere, compare how much is spent vs how many years are lived. I wouldn't be surprised if it comes out about the same. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 02:33:46 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:33:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Slaveholding George Washington > ?All rich men in Virginia were slaveholders at the time, and as Virginia was largest and richest state the first commander and chief was almost certainly going to be a slaveholder. ?And unlike Jefferson at least Washington freed his slaves when he died. Hey, better late than never. > ?>? > wasn't a radical. > ?The British ? ?though otherwise. If Washington has lost the war he would have been hanged. ? > ?> ? > Had history been slightly different > ?George Washington would ?have been the first king of the USA, instead after 8 years he chose to give up power and go home. That is very rare. ?> ? > Also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't about seizing > power. > ?Then ? libertarianism ? is a trivial movement that should be of no interest to a serious minded individual. ?> ? > It always is funny in a way that makes me want to puke how self-proclaimed > libertarians don't know this. > ?I've always been a ? libertarian ? but at one time I was a radical libertarian like you, and I thought government should go away entirely, but over the years I've come to realize like it or not government simply isn't going away this side of the singularity, so I just must learn to live with it. ?Yes if we were starting from scratch we could do better, but we're not starting from scratch. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 04:10:09 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:10:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 1:31 pm, spike wrote: > > > > https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-27/america-is-getting-richer > -and-sicker > > > "Suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol-related liver diseases have been the > biggest drivers of the mortality increase, and these problems have been > concentrated among those without college degrees." -Henry > > > > Ja I wondered about that. If we say we are going backward it sounds like > life expectancies are going down in the US. That isn't right, life > expectancies are still rising. But if we argue they are rising faster > elsewhere, I must ask how we account for young men shooting each other. > Why > should that count in life expectancy? And suicide, how do we account for > young people who listen to the horrifying garbage played over the radio? > Compare that to the fun (if vapid) rock and roll of our misspent youth, and > is there any wonder they slay themselves? > > Dopers and drunks perish a lot, but I just don't see that as a failing of > the healthcare system. We sit on our butts way too much, because most jobs > are that now. That is not exactly a shortcoming of our medical system. An > average earner can buy a stock motorcycle which can go 190 mph for two > months wages. The new artificial heroin isn't the medics' fault. > > A better comparison of the systems would be to take a group of 70 yr olds > here vs elsewhere, compare how much is spent vs how many years are lived. > I > wouldn't be surprised if it comes out about the same. You seem to be suggesting that mental illness is not a health problem, whereas it's a well known fact that thoughts and feelings are due to the brain and the brain is part of the body, the same as the heart or the liver are. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 29 04:41:57 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:41:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:10 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare You seem to be suggesting that mental illness is not a health problem, whereas it's a well known fact that thoughts and feelings are due to the brain and the brain is part of the body, the same as the heart or the liver are. -- Stathis Papaioannou Hi Stathis, no I get that. What I don?t get is how to count suicides in an evaluation of life expectancy and the medical system. If a teenager slays herself over a sweetheart, that has a crazy high impact on life expectancy compared to the medics fumbling about and giving a little old lady the wrong medication. Same with teenage inner city drug warriors: that isn?t anything any medical system can fix. I will repeat my earlier comment: I am suspicious of rip rap, or hip hop, whatever they call that goddam rubbish thinly disguised as entertainment. I partially blame that reprehensible ?art form? starting with Cobain and getting still worse from there. Sheesh, even disco is preferable with its brainless jiggle-inducing endless repetition of nothingness, and oh dear I have become my own grandfather, evolution rest his insightful soul. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 09:32:18 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:32:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 29 March 2017 at 05:41, spike wrote: > Hi Stathis, no I get that. What I don?t get is how to count suicides in an > evaluation of life expectancy and the medical system. If a teenager slays > herself over a sweetheart, that has a crazy high impact on life expectancy > compared to the medics fumbling about and giving a little old lady the wrong > medication. Same with teenage inner city drug warriors: that isn?t anything > any medical system can fix. > > I will repeat my earlier comment: I am suspicious of rip rap, or hip hop, > whatever they call that goddam rubbish thinly disguised as entertainment. I > partially blame that reprehensible ?art form? starting with Cobain and > getting still worse from there. Sheesh, even disco is preferable with its > brainless jiggle-inducing endless repetition of nothingness, and oh dear I > have become my own grandfather, evolution rest his insightful soul. > No, Spike. It's not bad music that is causing the increase in US white middle-aged suicides. The cause is that the part of the US outside the cities has seen their lives steadily get worse for eight years and they are in despair. Quotes: The massive increases in mortality among the non?college-educated white population has led to the overall white life expectancy at birth to fall in 2014 and for the overall life expectancy to fall in 2015. The usual suspects did not cause this turnaround. Deaths from heart disease and cancer ? the two largest killers of the middle-aged? have fallen. Instead, increases in drug overdoses, suicide, and liver diseases caused by alcohol have been able to more than offset these vast improvements in public health. Money also doesn't explain the divergences. The incomes of black and white Americans have moved in a similar pattern, and non?college-educated blacks suffered bigger income falls since 1999 ? and yet their mortality rates declined. For whites in middle age, however, "there is a strong correlation between median real household income per person and mortality from 1980 and 2015," Case and Deaton write. What's really happening, they suggest, is not so much short-run changes in income, but that "long-run stagnation in wages and in incomes has bred a sense of hopelessness." The underlying story, Case and Deaton suggest, is economic. "Cumulative distress, and the failure of life to turn out as expected is consistent with people compensating through other risky behaviours such as abuse of alcohol, overeating, or drug use," they wrote. "Ultimately, we see our story as about the collapse of the white, high school educated, working class after its heyday in the early 1970s, and the pathologies that accompany that decline." ------------------- That is exactly why the ignored half of the US population voted for Trump and why so many are giving up the struggle and committing suicide. BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 11:45:27 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:45:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 3:58 pm, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stathis Papaioannou > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 28, 2017 9:10 PM > > > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare > > > > > > > > You seem to be suggesting that mental illness is not a health problem, > whereas it's a well known fact that thoughts and feelings are due to the > brain and the brain is part of the body, the same as the heart or the liver > are. > > -- > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > > Hi Stathis, no I get that. What I don?t get is how to count suicides in > an evaluation of life expectancy and the medical system. If a teenager > slays herself over a sweetheart, that has a crazy high impact on life > expectancy compared to the medics fumbling about and giving a little old > lady the wrong medication. Same with teenage inner city drug warriors: > that isn?t anything any medical system can fix. > There are some conditions leading to suicide, such as the psychotic disorders and major depression, which are relatively easily diagnosed and treated. Others, such as personality disorders and substance abuse, are more difficult to treat but treatment can have some impact. This is the same in any branch of medicine. I will repeat my earlier comment: I am suspicious of rip rap, or hip hop, > whatever they call that goddam rubbish thinly disguised as entertainment. > I partially blame that reprehensible ?art form? starting with Cobain and > getting still worse from there. Sheesh, even disco is preferable with its > brainless jiggle-inducing endless repetition of nothingness, and oh dear I > have become my own grandfather, evolution rest his insightful soul. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 13:12:36 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:12:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Mark Walker wrote: > What we have now is the perfect combination of inefficiency and injustice. > I wanted to highlight this succinct nugget. I think it has potential to summarize a lot of evergreen topics. :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 14:04:59 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:04:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dan wrote: also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't about seizing power. It's about dismantling power. ----------- Funny how everybody thinks that they can define libertarianism for everyone. Me, I don't need any purists to define it for me. Having a police department, for instance, is a concession to authority which I gladly concede: ditto fire, streets, military, etc. and the tax people to gather money to fund such things. Enormously convenient. Has nothing to do with liberty. Or it has to do with liberty gladly given up to those who can do those things a lot better than I can by myself. Makes me a socialist, right? Right. bill w On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:33 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > ?> ? >> Slaveholding George Washington >> > > ?All rich men in Virginia were slaveholders at the time, and as Virginia > was largest and richest state the first commander and chief was almost > certainly going to be a slaveholder. ?And unlike Jefferson at least > Washington freed his slaves when he died. Hey, better late than never. > > >> ?>? >> wasn't a radical. >> > > ?The British ? > ?though otherwise. If Washington has lost the war he would have been > hanged. ? > > >> ?> ? >> Had history been slightly different >> > > ?George Washington would ?have been the first king of the USA, instead > after 8 years he chose to give up power and go home. That is very rare. > > > ?> ? >> Also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't about seizing >> power. >> > > ?Then ? > libertarianism > ? is a trivial movement that should be of no interest to a serious minded > individual. > > ?> ? >> It always is funny in a way that makes me want to puke how >> self-proclaimed libertarians don't know this. >> > > ?I've always been a ? > libertarian > ? but at one time I was a radical libertarian like you, and I thought > government should go away entirely, but over the years I've come to realize > like it or not government simply isn't going away this side of the > singularity, so I just must learn to live with it. ?Yes if we were starting > from scratch we could do better, but we're not starting from scratch. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 15:02:22 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:02:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6384023A-4C68-40D0-95D8-F80A649709DC@gmail.com> On Mar 29, 2017, at 7:04 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Dan wrote: > > also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't about seizing power. It's about dismantling power. > ----------- > Funny how everybody thinks that they can define libertarianism for everyone. Me, I don't need any purists to define it for me. > > Having a police department, for instance, is a concession to authority which I gladly concede: ditto fire, streets, military, etc. and the tax people to gather money to fund such things. Enormously convenient. Has nothing to do with liberty. Or it has to do with liberty gladly given up to those who can do those things a lot better than I can by myself. Makes me a socialist, right? Right. It's funny how you don't mind giving up other people's freedom, including forcing them to pay for "conveniences" you like. How magnanimous of you! Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 16:17:46 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 12:17:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:04 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > Funny how everybody thinks that they can define libertarianism for > everyone. > I think nearly everybody would say ?? libertarianism ? ? means mind your own business, the disagreements are over exactly what is your business and what is mine. It seems to me at the very minimum my business is what drugs enter my body, and that includes prescription drugs, marijuana, heroin and cobra venom. That's why I think it would be such a miscarriage of justice if Neil Gorsuch ? ? is confirmed for the Supreme Court, he is passionately anti- euthanasia ?.? By the way, I personally don't drink or take drugs and have never had a suicidal thought in ? ? my ? ? life, but I want to retain all those options. > ?> ? > Me, I don't need any purists to define it for me. > ?Purist libertarians don't take feasibility into account. I was once a purist, I no longer am. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 29 16:37:02 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:37:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <005701d2a8aa$b210fc50$1632f4f0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Quotes: ... "Ultimately, we see our story as about the collapse of the white, high school educated, working class after its heyday in the early 1970s, and the pathologies that accompany that decline." ------------------- >...That is exactly why the ignored half of the US population voted for Trump and why so many are giving up the struggle and committing suicide. >...BillK _______________________________________________ But... those guys won. Seems like they would at least want to hang around long enough to see if he really can make American great again. {8^D Hmmm, well OK, guess we need to wait around for numbers on that one, see if the suicide rate goes down since last November, but I have (as usual) a different spin on it. A recent comment suggested the USA is going backwards on life expectancy. I am reminded of a trip where I was hauling a trailer along the freeway which parallels the Oregon Trail. I had the cruise set on 60 mph, which is how one tows a rig, and of course the traffic was swooshing past us like tornados, some going triple digits out there in that open empty county. I was lost in thought as the two-track remains of the Oregon Trail crossed and re-crossed, still easily visible in places where the 1849 overlanders lined up in their Conestoga wagons. As the traffic whizzed by, my bride howled in frustration that we needed a bigger truck: we were practically going backwards. I suggested she look at it from the point of view of the long-gone wagon-jockies who went this way 150 years ago. We sit here in perfect air conditioned foam-padded comfort, listening to our tunes, munching on snacks and drinking coffee, effortlessly gliding across that harsh broiling desert at speeds beyond their fondest dreams. That's our family: I am Tigger, my bride is Eeyore. I have heard the stagnation of wages theory and perhaps it is right. But in the 1960s we were still in a post-war prosperity. Of course US wages will eventually reach parity with the other countries, and probably fall behind. On the other hand, I am constantly reminded of what a terrific time it is to be poor. So much cool stuff is free now. Khan Academy and many of the other online education resources allow anyone with a 50 dollar internet-capable device to access all that excellent material absolutely free, study up as much as we want, learn anything we want, all that free nekkidness (that used to cost so much (if one could get it at all (and so much better than National Geographic))) all the sports, science, technology and entertainment a prole can devour, all the new science instruments dumping all that cool data on us, all of it just sitting out there available to all. A lot of cities have a competent enough food bank, and the local Salvation Army will put clothing on a body, oh such a time to be alive, such a time. So ja, I have heard the stagnant wages theory, but it seems less than compelling to me. We have long heard the best things in life are free. Only recently has it become literally true. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 29 16:41:20 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 09:41:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <01ed01d2a777$2898e020$79caa060$@att.net> Message-ID: <005f01d2a8ab$4c491e60$e4db5b20$@att.net> >?On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Mark Walker > wrote: >>?What we have now is the perfect combination of inefficiency and injustice. >?I wanted to highlight this succinct nugget. I think it has potential to summarize a lot of evergreen topics. :) Life is not fair. Life is good. Good is better than fair. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 29 17:45:50 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:45:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself Message-ID: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> A feller posted to me offlist about the medics giving him bad advice, and how he went online and dug deep, figured out what was the best medicine, then did it. I commented: Well think about it: what do doctors have that you don't? They sat in lectures, the old-style, and learned about skerjillions of diseases just enough to demonstrate competence on a test. But you have only one thing wrong with you. So you can research it and learn more about that one thing than they know, because they didn't have time to dig deep on any topic. I see this as a major shortcoming of our medical system: the medics are far under-specialized. The specialists must start with a medical degree. Of course they are too expensive, sheesh. We could create a system where any prole with a high school degree could take a two or three year degree and learn every damn thing that can possibly go wrong with a foot or an ear. She doesn't need a college degree and definitely doesn't need a goddam medical school degree. She could learn all the medications available, would see everything and get plenty of experience, would know when she needs to refer the patient on up. We could easily employ plenty of people who would make a living wage and still end up with better care because we could afford to see them. We would make super-specialized medical consultants the economic and functional equivalent to the place where you get a massage, only you wouldn't get the blow job. Unless you paid the extra. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 18:19:58 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:19:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> Message-ID: On 29 March 2017 at 18:45, spike wrote: > I see this as a major shortcoming of our medical system: the medics are far > under-specialized. The specialists must start with a medical degree. Of > course they are too expensive, sheesh. We could create a system where any > prole with a high school degree could take a two or three year degree and > learn every damn thing that can possibly go wrong with a foot or an ear. > She doesn?t need a college degree and definitely doesn?t need a goddam > medical school degree. She could learn all the medications available, would > see everything and get plenty of experience, would know when she needs to > refer the patient on up. We could easily employ plenty of people who would > make a living wage and still end up with better care because we could afford > to see them. We would make super-specialized medical consultants the > economic and functional equivalent to the place where you get a massage, > only you wouldn?t get the blow job. Unless you paid the extra. > Too much for one person to learn?? You need Dr Watson....... -with-artificial.aspx> Quote: IBM's Watson Is Tackling Healthcare With Artificial Intelligence The company has been making a splash in AI, and its investments in the healthcare industry are starting to produce results. Mar 19, 2017 Dr. Watson, I presume... Those investments appear to be paying off. Doctors at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine provided Watson with the records of 1,000 cancer patients, and it was able to provide treatment plans that concurred with oncologists' actual recommendations in 99% of cases. Additionally, Watson was able to provide additional options missed by its human counterparts in 30% of the cases, having been supplied with all the latest cancer research. This will provide effective cancer treatment to a wider variety of patients than ever before, while making every doctor with access to Watson a cancer expert. -------------- Now it's doctors facing unemployment! BillK From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 29 18:33:03 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:33:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> Message-ID: <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >...Dr. Watson, I presume... ... -------------- >...Now it's doctors facing unemployment! >...BillK _______________________________________________ Noooooo on the contrary. If we take steps to make doctors more affordable, we can go see them. I have full medical coverage; I don't go to the medics. The deductible has gone crazy high since O-care. I can imagine super-specialist who are really more like chiropractors, where insurance doesn't cover them, but really insurance doesn't cover most stuff now, in a practical sense, because of that deductible. But if we had ordinary people who are priced out of the college market (and don't really like the idea of them acting as indoctrination camps anyway) go study one very specific area of health and wellbeing, with everything in between, that might work. We can imagine a kind of pharmacist who you talk to and show her what is wrong, she decides if the commercial products might help you and so forth. Physicians would still have a job, but they would be the tougher cases. They don't need to see every sniffly nose and dirty bottom, they really don't need to see every case where a host of medical problems are caused by flab-meisters sitting on our lazy butts in front of the computer all day munching twinkies. We know that is bad for us, we know how to fix it, we don't need expensive doctors to tell us. We can have specialists work that, somebody like a PE coach or a foxy babe who encourages us to move our asses, who would refer the sick patients on up if they really need it. We need to really think about new career paths in medicine and other areas rather than just watch the old ones fall away one by one while we wring our hands. spike From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 19:17:23 2017 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 20:17:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: <005701d2a8aa$b210fc50$1632f4f0$@att.net> References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> <005701d2a8aa$b210fc50$1632f4f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 29 March 2017 at 17:37, spike wrote: > I have heard the stagnation of wages theory and perhaps it is right. But in the 1960s we were still in a post-war prosperity. Of course US wages will eventually reach parity with the other countries, and probably fall behind. On the other hand, I am constantly reminded of what a terrific time it is to be poor. So much cool stuff is free now. Khan Academy and many of the other online education resources allow anyone with a 50 dollar internet-capable device to access all that excellent material absolutely free, study up as much as we want, learn anything we want, all that free nekkidness (that used to cost so much (if one could get it at all (and so much better than National Geographic))) all the sports, science, technology and entertainment a prole can devour, all the new science instruments dumping all that cool data on us, all of it just sitting out there available to all. A lot of cities have a competent enough food bank, and the local Salvation Army will put clothing on a body, oh such a time to be alive, such a time. > > So ja, I have heard the stagnant wages theory, but it seems less than compelling to me. > We have long heard the best things in life are free. Only recently has it become literally true. The big increase in suicide rates is for a quite specific group. Full pdf report here: "In 1999, the mortality rate of white non-Hispanics aged 50-54 with only a high school degree was 30 percent lower than the mortality rate of blacks in the same age group," Case and Deaton wrote." In 2015, it was 30 percent higher." All white non-Hispanic age groups (male and female) with high school or less education increased suicides to some extent, but the bigger increases were over age 50, when they appear to give up on life. The problem is to think of reasons that apply to that specific USA group only. Not blacks, college educated people or people in other countries. >From the report: We have seen that it is difficult to link the increasing distress in midlife to the obvious contemporaneous aggregate factors such as income or unemployment. . What our data show is that the patterns of mortality and morbidity for white non-Hispanics without a college degree move together over lifetimes and birth cohorts, and that they move in tandem with other social dysfunctions, including the decline of marriage, social isolation, and detachment from the labor force. ------------ Sounds like a breakdown in that level of society. No prospects, loads of problems, nobody cares, pointless existence, etc. Of course the ones that don't suicide are angry. A problem for the future to deal with. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 20:18:01 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:18:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> Message-ID: spike wrote: We need to really think about new career paths in medicine and other areas rather than just watch the old ones fall away one by one while we wring our hands. ------------------- The clinic I went to had only one doctor and several nurse practitioners. They should be charging different fees. Another thing: regular nurses are WAY WAY overtrained for what they do. A lot of it if fetching charts, ferrying patients here and there, taking blood pressure, etc., all of which could be done by a graduate of junior high school, if not lower. Monkeys? Physicians are highly conservative and don't want to give up any territory to AIs, nurses, etc. and will hold on far too long. I think they will be forced to on the AI question, as the AI is demonstrably better and sometime in the future every doctor's office will have one;, hooked to the web, of course. . You don't fill out any charts. You talk to the AI and tell it everything it wants to hear, and a preliminary diagnosis and treatment will be done before the doctor is seen. No blasted paperwork that people lie on, don't have the reading level to understand, etc. And why not put one on every corner in town? It can direct you to specialists, if needed, just a drug store if not, and so on. Licensing will be a problem for the old fogies. Doctors, not surprisingly, are like everyone else: highly variable. I pity anyone who has had conditions like mine and just did what the doctor said and never questioned, never researched, never got second, third, fourth opinions. One guy I know had to see 17 doctors before they found it was shingles. On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:33 PM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf Of BillK > > > >...Dr. Watson, I presume... > > ... > -------------- > > >...Now it's doctors facing unemployment! > > >...BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > > Noooooo on the contrary. If we take steps to make doctors more > affordable, we can go see them. I have full medical coverage; I don't go > to the medics. The deductible has gone crazy high since O-care. > > I can imagine super-specialist who are really more like chiropractors, > where insurance doesn't cover them, but really insurance doesn't cover most > stuff now, in a practical sense, because of that deductible. > > But if we had ordinary people who are priced out of the college market > (and don't really like the idea of them acting as indoctrination camps > anyway) go study one very specific area of health and wellbeing, with > everything in between, that might work. We can imagine a kind of > pharmacist who you talk to and show her what is wrong, she decides if the > commercial products might help you and so forth. > > Physicians would still have a job, but they would be the tougher cases. > They don't need to see every sniffly nose and dirty bottom, they really > don't need to see every case where a host of medical problems are caused by > flab-meisters sitting on our lazy butts in front of the computer all day > munching twinkies. We know that is bad for us, we know how to fix it, we > don't need expensive doctors to tell us. We can have specialists work > that, somebody like a PE coach or a foxy babe who encourages us to move our > asses, who would refer the sick patients on up if they really need it. > > We need to really think about new career paths in medicine and other areas > rather than just watch the old ones fall away one by one while we wring our > hands. > > 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 Mar 29 21:56:52 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 14:56:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> <021e01d2a834$4b30a290$e191e7b0$@att.net> <027701d2a846$cd5b3750$6811a5f0$@att.net> <005701d2a8aa$b210fc50$1632f4f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <011c01d2a8d7$60a2e950$21e8bbf0$@att.net> >... Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare On 29 March 2017 at 17:37, spike wrote: >> ... oh such a time to be alive, such a time. > ------------ >...Sounds like a breakdown in that level of society. No prospects, loads of problems, nobody cares, pointless existence, etc. Of course the ones that don't suicide are angry. A problem for the future to deal with. BillK _______________________________________________ Oh man BillK, you gave me a helllll of an idea: we create care-bots. We start with talking avatars (perhaps using the images of Dr. Jill Stein) and hitch it to something like Eliza. For those here old enough to have fooled with it, you already know that if one suspends disbelief hard enough, one could imagine that Eliza cares. I told her some really personal stuff. We could take out the nobody-cares quadrant to some extent (imagining that Dr. Stein's avatar cares) and reduce the pointless existence quadrant a bit (you live to play with this software.) That part about no prospects doesn't go away; that gets worse if a white guy is sitting around playing on the computer rather than looking for an actual job. But it would give some people prospects: those who are creating the software to create the illusion that Dr. Stein cares. It would be kind of a modern version of Care Bears, only in software rather than cartoons. Oh man we could be rich and famous. Billk, there is no point in denying the obvious: a lot of what is causing this white guy suicide rate to soar is that their careers flame out around 50 instead of the usual 65. Then they don't know what to do. Hey, it happened to me. But I knew what to do: continue with my life, more than ever. Help others if I can. Learn new stuff. Write software, get physically fit, think, learn, do, that kinda junk. spike From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 22:37:34 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 16:37:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Stathis, On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 4:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Given the above scenario, do you agree that all the neurons will fire in > the same sequence? If you disagree, what is triggering them to fire > differently that the scientist has failed to observe? Don't say "redness" > or "the binding system" - what specific thing was the glutamate molecule > doing that G3 is not doing, which the scientist missed? > > I keep answering these same question over and over again. Yes, I agree, given what you describe all the neurons will fire in the same sequence and all behavior will be the same. But, despite me clearly answering this question, you always seem to assume that I disagree. And you say: ?Don't say "redness" or "the binding system". But I?m not saying ?redness? or the ?binding system? in the case you are describing, where I agree with you, that everything will fire the same. The problem is, we each keep talking about something completely different. ?redness? or the ?binding system? has nothing to do with the incomplete scenario you are describing. You seem to think that because I?m trying to talk about ?redness? and the ?binding system? that I disagree with you that everything will fire the same, in your case. I?m not doing this. I?m just saying that ?redness? and the ?binding system? (which we know consciousness has) has nothing to do with the simplistic scenario you are describing. Perhaps it will make things easier if we just focus on an objective view of things, and ignore ?redness? all together. The system we want to ?neuro substitute? is a glutamate detector. We artificially design a special detection system that can compare a reference item (i.e. glutamate) with a second input item being tested. It is a perfect system, in that if you present real glutamate, it will always fire with a ?this is the same as the reference? signal. Anything, that is not glutamate, will prevent the system from firing, indicating they are not the same, or that it isn?t glutamate. Now, this kind of detection system is what we want to neuro substitute. The system you describe, always fires the same, so the system you are neurosubstituting may not be performing the necessary reliable detection of glutamate. You seem to make the claim, that your system that always fires the same, will be able to do things like do qualitative comparisons or detect real glutamate. I agree with you, that if everything behaves the same, that it will still be able to do qualitative comparison, or detection of real glutamate. So, I?m describing a bit more detail, about the system you are talking about, so that it can perform the detection of real glutamate. But, no matter how I do this, you always insist, that the system will not detect glutamate, as it will fire the same, indicating it is glutamate, even when it is not glutamate. After the neuro substitution, in order for it to function the same, it must still be able to reliably perform its necessary function of detect real glutamate. All I?m trying to say is, I agree with you, that if what you describe is true, it will always function the same. All I?m doing, is enhancing the description of the system, so that it can reliably detect real glutamate. If you do this, and if the system can reliably detect real glutamate, both before and after the substitutuion, you won?t have hard problems, such as an overly simplistic substitution seeming to prove there is no such thing as reliably detectable real material glutamate. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 23:56:35 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:56:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLWW91IGFpbid0IHNlZW4gbm90aGluZyB5ZXTigIs=?= Message-ID: Blackrock is the world's biggest money manager with stock funds are worth over $275 billion, yesterday they announced they would fire over 40 employees including some portfolio managers with astronomical paychecks. The reason is they decided to let computers running AI software pick stocks and manage 11% of their funds. 89% of Blackston's fund managers still have a job, but if I was one of them I might decide I don't need to buy a new Rolls Royce every month and it would be wise for me to start saving my money for a rainy day. Uneducated people with low paying jobs will not be the only ones to face unemployment from the AI revolution?, and that is the reason pure unmodified libertarian philosophy is not consistent with the continuation of human civilization. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Mar 29 23:59:59 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:59:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <00ac01d2a7db$9345b060$b9d11120$@att.net> Message-ID: Interesting video related to this subject: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2015/oct/28/david-graeber-what-government-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-debt-video Jason On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:10 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:54 AM, spike wrote: > > > >> ?> ? >> the US federal government is dysfunctional too: it does not and cannot >> balance the budget. >> >> ?Spike, doesn't the FACT that the US federal government has failed to > balance the budget nearly every year since 1835 make you question the > theory that they must balance the budget or they are dysfunctional? > > >> ?> ? >> In a family, when there is a budget shortfall, something doesn?t get >> bought > > > ?Or they get a loan. Most families can't afford to pay cash for their > house, and yet they still manage to live in a house somehow. In the mid > 1970s INTEL handmade in a lab a new gadget called a "microprocessor", they > could have continued to make them in the lab and tried to sell them for a > million dollars a chip or they could have massed produced them in a factory > and sold them for $10 a chip. They chose the second option, but to do so > they had to go into debt, they had to go to a bank and get a loan to pay > for the expensive factory. I think you would agree INTEL made the correct > choice. ? > > > ?> ? >> I do not feel it is morally justifiable to speculate that the future >> will be richer and it is my solemn responsibility to spend its wealth. >> That the future will be more prosperous is my firm belief, but my firm >> belief might be wrong. > > > ?Yes we might be wrong, but if we waited until we were absolutely certain > what the eventual outcome of our actions would be we'd be unable to perform > any actions at all about anything; so all we can do is play the odds and > place our bets to the best of our judgement.? > > ?I think it is a very good bet that technology will improve and a even > better bet that if technology improves then the total amount of wealth in > the world will increase.? The big uncertainty is how all that new wealth > will get divided up. > > > ?>? >> The future might be poor. > > > The future could contain poor people even if the total amount of wealth in > the world increases. It > ?'s? > a good bet that if the number of poor people gets too large revolution > will result and civilization will collapse, and it's a even better bet that > if > ? > civilization collapses everybody will end up being poor. > > >> ?> ? >> By running big deficits, we might be robbing from the poor to give to the >> rich. > > > ?We might be, but we're probably not. > > 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 jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 00:02:06 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:02:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <00b101d2a7dc$8b46ea90$a1d4bfb0$@att.net> Message-ID: Despite income tax rates varying widely, and going as high as 90% for the top brackets, the federal government has never been able to bring in more than about 20% of GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_law Jason On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > On Wed., 29 Mar. 2017 at 3:16 am, spike wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Dylan Distasio >> >> >> >> ?The average UK citizen lives to be 81.2 years old and spends $4003 a >> year on healthcare, the average USA citizen lives to be 79.3 years old and >> spends $9451 on healthcare?John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How do we account for the ongoing drug wars in Chicago and other major US >> cities? If a drug gangster shoots another 19 year old drug gangster, does >> that average in to life expectancy? Why? What if a drug gang captures a >> member of a rival gang, takes him to the parking lot of the local hospital, >> shoot him, he crawls up to the ER, racks up huge bills. How does that >> count? >> >> >> >> Alternative: take a group of living 60 yr olds, the kind of people >> unlikely to perish in these drug wars. How do those compare between those >> countries? >> >> >> >> Another observation: it is meaningless to compare socialist countries >> with capitalist countries, because socialist countries can theoretically >> raise more funds at the federal level than capitalist governments can. The >> US government is already very close to the maximum revenue it can generate. >> > > > How? They can increase the income tax to 90% if they want. > >> -- > 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 jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 00:08:39 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:08:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > ? >>> ?>>? >>> The USA has gone backward. In 1960 >> >> >> ?> ? >> Note the changes in medical legislation from 01956 onward. Would you say >> that has nothing to do with this? >> > > ?Obviously not, if I thought otherwise I would not have mentioned it as > this thread is about medical legislation. ? > > > >> ?> ? >> Do you want to do data analysis or just do pretend science by factoid? >> > > ?Factoid?? We're talking about the results of a experiment that lasted > decades involved about a billion people and cost trillions of dollars, and > the results are clear as a bell; like it or not single payer countries get > more bang for their buck, they live longer and spend less, a lot less. As a > libertarian I wish the facts could have produced a different conclusion but > reality doesn't give a damn what I prefer. > > ?> ? >> My point is you have to look at more than just tote factoid. >> > > Factoid my ass! ? > > > >> In this case, you'd have to make sure you're comparing like to like. >> > > ?Of those 30 countries you can't ?find one that is anything like the USA? > Are Canadians a different species? > > > >> . >> ?> ? >> Let me try another example that you'll ignore, but others might benefit >> from. >> ? ? >> Smoking rates are lower in the US than in Japan. >> > > ?Slightly lower that's true. The smoking in the USA has dropped a lot in > recent years, from 20.9% in 2005 to > 16.8% > ?in 2015 ? > vs 19.3% in > ?Japan. ? > ? > > >> ?> ? >> The Japanese life expectancy is higher. >> > > ?I know, 83.1 years vs 78.8, yet the Japanese spend only $4150 on health > with their single payer plan and the USA spends > $ 9405 > ? with its convoluted mess. This is not a subtle difference that can be > explained away as a rounding error. > > It also costs $2000 to get an MRI in the US and $200 in Japan. It's actually cheaper to get a round trip ticket to Japan and get an MRI there then to get one down the street. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 01:41:48 2017 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 21:41:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: I assume you're talking about someone with little or no insurance in the US, as the MRI would likely be the same price otherwise based on a typical large employer plan. On Mar 29, 2017 8:10 PM, "Jason Resch" wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> ? >>>> ?>>? >>>> The USA has gone backward. In 1960 >>> >>> >>> ?> ? >>> Note the changes in medical legislation from 01956 onward. Would you say >>> that has nothing to do with this? >>> >> >> ?Obviously not, if I thought otherwise I would not have mentioned it as >> this thread is about medical legislation. ? >> >> >> >>> ?> ? >>> Do you want to do data analysis or just do pretend science by factoid? >>> >> >> ?Factoid?? We're talking about the results of a experiment that lasted >> decades involved about a billion people and cost trillions of dollars, and >> the results are clear as a bell; like it or not single payer countries get >> more bang for their buck, they live longer and spend less, a lot less. As a >> libertarian I wish the facts could have produced a different conclusion but >> reality doesn't give a damn what I prefer. >> >> ?> ? >>> My point is you have to look at more than just tote factoid. >>> >> >> Factoid my ass! ? >> >> >> >>> In this case, you'd have to make sure you're comparing like to like. >>> >> >> ?Of those 30 countries you can't ?find one that is anything like the >> USA? Are Canadians a different species? >> >> >> >>> . >>> ?> ? >>> Let me try another example that you'll ignore, but others might benefit >>> from. >>> ? ? >>> Smoking rates are lower in the US than in Japan. >>> >> >> ?Slightly lower that's true. The smoking in the USA has dropped a lot in >> recent years, from 20.9% in 2005 to >> 16.8% >> ?in 2015 ? >> vs 19.3% in >> ?Japan. ? >> ? >> >> >>> ?> ? >>> The Japanese life expectancy is higher. >>> >> >> ?I know, 83.1 years vs 78.8, yet the Japanese spend only $4150 on health >> with their single payer plan and the USA spends >> $ 9405 >> ? with its convoluted mess. This is not a subtle difference that can be >> explained away as a rounding error. >> >> > > It also costs $2000 to get an MRI in the US and $200 in Japan. It's > actually cheaper to get a round trip ticket to Japan and get an MRI there > then to get one down the street. > > Jason > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing 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 Thu Mar 30 03:12:14 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:12:14 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: >> I assume you're talking about someone with little or no insurance in the US, as the MRI would likely be the same price otherwise based on a typical large employer plan. On 30 March 2017 at 12:41, Dylan Distasio wrote: > I assume you're talking about someone with little or no insurance in the > US, as the MRI would likely be the same price otherwise based on a typical > large employer plan. > > On Mar 29, 2017 8:10 PM, "Jason Resch" wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> >>> ? >>>>> ?>>? >>>>> The USA has gone backward. In 1960 >>>> >>>> >>>> ?> ? >>>> Note the changes in medical legislation from 01956 onward. Would you >>>> say that has nothing to do with this? >>>> >>> >>> ?Obviously not, if I thought otherwise I would not have mentioned it as >>> this thread is about medical legislation. ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> ?> ? >>>> Do you want to do data analysis or just do pretend science by factoid? >>>> >>> >>> ?Factoid?? We're talking about the results of a experiment that lasted >>> decades involved about a billion people and cost trillions of dollars, and >>> the results are clear as a bell; like it or not single payer countries get >>> more bang for their buck, they live longer and spend less, a lot less. As a >>> libertarian I wish the facts could have produced a different conclusion but >>> reality doesn't give a damn what I prefer. >>> >>> ?> ? >>>> My point is you have to look at more than just tote factoid. >>>> >>> >>> Factoid my ass! ? >>> >>> >>> >>>> In this case, you'd have to make sure you're comparing like to like. >>>> >>> >>> ?Of those 30 countries you can't ?find one that is anything like the >>> USA? Are Canadians a different species? >>> >>> >>> >>>> . >>>> ?> ? >>>> Let me try another example that you'll ignore, but others might benefit >>>> from. >>>> ? ? >>>> Smoking rates are lower in the US than in Japan. >>>> >>> >>> ?Slightly lower that's true. The smoking in the USA has dropped a lot in >>> recent years, from 20.9% in 2005 to >>> 16.8% >>> ?in 2015 ? >>> vs 19.3% in >>> ?Japan. ? >>> ? >>> >>> >>>> ?> ? >>>> The Japanese life expectancy is higher. >>>> >>> >>> ?I know, 83.1 years vs 78.8, yet the Japanese spend only $4150 on health >>> with their single payer plan and the USA spends >>> $ 9405 >>> ? with its convoluted mess. This is not a subtle difference that can be >>> explained away as a rounding error. >>> >>> >> >> It also costs $2000 to get an MRI in the US and $200 in Japan. It's >> actually cheaper to get a round trip ticket to Japan and get an MRI there >> then to get one down the street. >> >> Jason >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 The actual cost - paid by Government, insurer or patient - of health care is higher in the US compared to other countries with similar per capita GDP. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 03:31:02 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:31:02 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: Brent Allsop wrote: On 30 March 2017 at 09:37, Brent Allsop wrote: > Given the above scenario, do you agree that all the neurons will fire in >> the same sequence? If you disagree, what is triggering them to fire >> differently that the scientist has failed to observe? Don't say "redness" >> or "the binding system" - what specific thing was the glutamate molecule >> doing that G3 is not doing, which the scientist missed? >> >> I keep answering these same question over and over again. Yes, I agree, > given what you describe all the neurons will fire in the same sequence and > all behavior will be the same. But, despite me clearly answering this > question, you always seem to assume that I disagree. And you say: ?Don't > say "redness" or "the binding system". But I?m not saying ?redness? or > the ?binding system? in the case you are describing, where I agree with > you, that everything will fire the same. > > > > The problem is, we each keep talking about something completely different. > ?redness? or the ?binding system? has nothing to do with the incomplete > scenario you are describing. You seem to think that because I?m trying > to talk about ?redness? and the ?binding system? that I disagree with you > that everything will fire the same, in your case. I?m not doing this. I?m > just saying that ?redness? and the ?binding system? (which we know > consciousness has) has nothing to do with the simplistic scenario you are > describing. > > > > Perhaps it will make things easier if we just focus on an objective view > of things, and ignore ?redness? all together. The system we want to > ?neuro substitute? is a glutamate detector. We artificially design a > special detection system that can compare a reference item (i.e. glutamate) > with a second input item being tested. It is a perfect system, in that > if you present real glutamate, it will always fire with a ?this is the same > as the reference? signal. Anything, that is not glutamate, will prevent > the system from firing, indicating they are not the same, or that it isn?t > glutamate. > > > > Now, this kind of detection system is what we want to neuro substitute. The > system you describe, always fires the same, so the system you are > neurosubstituting may not be performing the necessary reliable detection of > glutamate. You seem to make the claim, that your system that always > fires the same, will be able to do things like do qualitative comparisons > or detect real glutamate. I agree with you, that if everything behaves > the same, that it will still be able to do qualitative comparison, or > detection of real glutamate. So, I?m describing a bit more detail, about > the system you are talking about, so that it can perform the detection of > real glutamate. But, no matter how I do this, you always insist, that > the system will not detect glutamate, as it will fire the same, indicating > it is glutamate, even when it is not glutamate. After the neuro > substitution, in order for it to function the same, it must still be able > to reliably perform its necessary function of detect real glutamate. > > > > All I?m trying to say is, I agree with you, that if what you describe is > true, it will always function the same. All I?m doing, is enhancing the > description of the system, so that it can reliably detect real glutamate. > If you do this, and if the system can reliably detect real glutamate, both > before and after the substitutuion, you won?t have hard problems, such as > an overly simplistic substitution seeming to prove there is no such thing > as reliably detectable real material glutamate. > If the system is designed to detect real glutamate, and you change it so that it is not detecting real glutamate, then of course it will fail in its job to detect real glutamate. But that is the wrong question to ask. We are discussing qualia. Your theory is that glutamate is directly and uniquely responsible for red qualia, and therefore if the glutamate goes, the red qualia will go. What I am trying to show is that the glutamate can go but the red qualia will remain. Therefore, the glutamate cannot be directly and uniquely responsible for the red qualia. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diego.saravia at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 11:01:49 2017 From: diego.saravia at gmail.com (Diego Saravia) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:01:49 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Rapamycin Message-ID: https://futurism.com/a-bacterium-could-be-the-key-to-an-anti-aging-pill-for-humans/ -- Diego Saravia Diego.Saravia at gmail.com NO FUNCIONA->dsa at unsa.edu.ar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 12:50:00 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:50:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 4:18 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Physicians are highly conservative and don't want to give up any territory > to AIs, nurses, etc. and will hold on far too long. I think they will be > forced to on the AI question, as the AI is demonstrably better and sometime > in the future every doctor's office will have one;, hooked to the web, of > course. . > You don't fill out any charts. You talk to the AI and tell it everything > it wants to hear, and a preliminary diagnosis and treatment will be done > before the doctor is seen. No blasted paperwork that people lie on, don't > have the reading level to understand, etc. > > And why not put one on every corner in town? It can direct you to > specialists, if needed, just a drug store if not, and so on. Licensing > will be a problem for the old fogies. > > Doctors, not surprisingly, are like everyone else: highly variable. I > pity anyone who has had conditions like mine and just did what the doctor > said and never questioned, never researched, never got second, third, > fourth opinions. One guy I know had to see 17 doctors before they found it > was shingles. > > You already hold the sum total of human knowledge in the palm of your hand. Soon that device will be shipping with the AI necessary for your feeble human brain to actually find and consume the relevant parts of that total knowledge. The AI doctor will see you now. It will have also seen you in all the moments preceding now. It will continue to see you in all the moments after. Your treatment will be voluntary, of course, but the cost of non-compliance will likely be higher than you want to incur. Since the device is your menu, your waiter, and your wallet... you will be very effectively "cared for" by the device. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 13:35:57 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:35:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's funny how you don't mind giving up other people's freedom, including forcing them to pay for "conveniences" you like. How magnanimous of you! Dan Now you are objecting to democracy? bill w On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:17 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:04 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > ?> ? >> Funny how everybody thinks that they can define libertarianism for >> everyone. >> > > I think nearly everybody would say > ?? > libertarianism > ? ? > means mind your own business, the disagreements are over exactly what is > your business and what is mine. It seems to me at the very minimum my > business is what drugs enter my body, and that includes prescription drugs, > marijuana, heroin and cobra venom. That's why I think it would be such a > miscarriage of justice if Neil Gorsuch > ? ? > is confirmed for the Supreme Court, he is passionately anti- > euthanasia > ?.? > By the way, I personally don't drink or take drugs and have never had a > suicidal thought in > ? ? > my > ? ? > life, but I want to retain all those options. > > >> ?> ? >> Me, I don't need any purists to define it for me. >> > > ?Purist libertarians don't take feasibility into account. I was once a > purist, I no longer am. ? > > John K Clark > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 13:42:58 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:42:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > You already hold the sum total of human knowledge in the palm of your > hand. Soon that device will be shipping with the AI necessary for your > feeble human brain to actually find and consume the relevant parts of that > total knowledge. The AI doctor will see you now. It will have also seen > you in all the moments preceding now. It will continue to see you in all > the moments after. Your treatment will be voluntary, of course, but the > cost of non-compliance will likely be higher than you want to incur. Since > the device is your menu, your waiter, and your wallet... you will be very > effectively "cared for" by the device. > ?----- > ?Now what would really make this a wonderful new reality is that if I could prescribe my own drugs. This is an immense power physicians have over all of us. I realize the abuses could be horrendous, but maybe we could start with an AI recommending some treatment and giving the OK to a druggist. And leaving out opiates and some others. Say start with metformin - truly a wonder drug (Google it!), but taking it without signs of diabetes is off-label use and all we can do is ask for it from our physician?. bill w > ? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 14:35:36 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 07:35:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13B62C9D-3774-41B1-B9E5-BCA79832E9B0@gmail.com> On Mar 30, 2017, at 6:35 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > It's funny how you don't mind giving up other people's freedom, including forcing them to pay for "conveniences" you like. How magnanimous of you! > Dan > > Now you are objecting to democracy? As Roderick Long out it, "... rather than the many dictating to the few or the few dictating to the many, what libertarians seek is a world where nobody is in a position to dictate to anybody ? or at least to get as close to that situation as possible." and: "In other words, libertarians don?t oppose democracy (in the conventional sense) because they hanker after autocracy; they oppose democracy because it is too much like autocracy." See http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarians-in-jackboots/ He's not the first libertarian to make this point. I'm shocked that you're unaware of this. Even Robert Nozick, a minarchist libertarian, wanted strict limits on democracy -- limits on what his minimal government could do. And he was writing about that in the early 01970s. Your overall view of what libertarianism is seems to draw no lines at all between libertarianism and anything else. I'm wondering who isn't a libertarian by your lights? Kim Jong-un? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 14:59:22 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:59:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Shadows and the concept of self Message-ID: Shadows and the concept of self The chaotic path of my quest to better understand fundamental quantum physics has taken me back to the ?many worlds? ideas of Hugh Everett & co. I?m republishing this related article that author Richard L. Miller and I wrote in 2005, with minor edits to fix typos... https://turingchurch.net/shadows-and-the-concept-of-self-d01ff65ce9f9 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 15:17:16 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 08:17:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Complacent trust? Message-ID: <369B5690-E9B8-4E49-9A6B-3731FD0F97A5@gmail.com> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/03/does_too_much_t.html It's a brief post, but the briefer takeaway is not all that counterintuitive: too much trust might make for complacency, and complacency might lead to lower economic growth. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 17:12:00 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:12:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <13B62C9D-3774-41B1-B9E5-BCA79832E9B0@gmail.com> References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> <13B62C9D-3774-41B1-B9E5-BCA79832E9B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: our overall view of what libertarianism is seems to draw no lines at all between libertarianism and anything else. I'm wondering who isn't a libertarian by your lights? Kim Jong-un? Regards, Dan This will permanently end any discussion on any subject with you. I have objected to your boorishness from the very first and you have not stopped it. I don't know where you learned your manners or your debating skills, but you need to amend them in some way so as to have a decent discussion with me. I regard this as very unlikely. bill w On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 30, 2017, at 6:35 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > It's funny how you don't mind giving up other people's freedom, including > forcing them to pay for "conveniences" you like. How magnanimous of you! > > Dan > > Now you are objecting to democracy? > > > As Roderick Long out it, > > "... rather than the many dictating to the few or the few dictating to the > many, what libertarians seek is a world where nobody is in a position to > dictate to anybody ? or at least to get as close to that situation as > possible." > > and: > > "In other words, libertarians don?t oppose democracy (in the conventional > sense) because they hanker after autocracy; they oppose democracy because > it is *too much like autocracy*." > > See http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/libertarians-in- > jackboots/ > > He's not the first libertarian to make this point. I'm shocked that you're > unaware of this. Even Robert Nozick, a minarchist libertarian, wanted > strict limits on democracy -- limits on what his minimal government could > do. And he was writing about that in the early 01970s. > > Your overall view of what libertarianism is seems to draw no lines at all > between libertarianism and anything else. I'm wondering who isn't a > libertarian by your lights? Kim Jong-un? > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 17:26:48 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 13:26:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > All I?m doing, is enhancing the description of the system, so that it can > reliably detect real glutamate. If you do this, and if the system can > reliably detect real glutamate, both before and after the substitutuion, ?A mass spectrometer can detect glutamate too, and ?do so better than a neuron. Neurons can be fooled, sometimes the chemical they think they're detecting isn't the real deal, that's how neurotoxins work. But if a mass spectrometer says it's glutamate you can be sure it's glutamate. What any of this has to do with consciousness I don't have the slightest idea, nor can I see how this shows the superiority of biology over electronics. > ?> ? > I?m just saying that ?redness? and the ?binding system? (which we know > consciousness has) has nothing to do with the simplistic scenario you are > describing. ?N? othing to do with ? it?! If I change the binding system in your brain your consciousness changes. When your consciousness changes the binding system in your brain ? changes. What more evidence is needed to say 2 things are related? What more evidence could there even be? John K Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 18:43:28 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:43:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: References: <20170304192512.4196350257B@mail.openmailbox.org> <2F84D03B-2943-4555-8F46-24FE7BBECC13@gmail.com> <4347B2BF-A76C-4DA4-B862-7C6DB28B1581@gmail.com> <431405E5-FA41-4564-B670-CFEBBAA784B0@gmail.com> <13B62C9D-3774-41B1-B9E5-BCA79832E9B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2017, at 10:12 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > our overall view of what libertarianism is seems to draw no lines at all between libertarianism and anything else. I'm wondering who isn't a libertarian by your lights? Kim Jong-un? > > Regards, > > Dan > > This will permanently end any discussion on any subject with you. I have objected to your boorishness from the very first and you have not stopped it. I don't know where you learned your manners or your debating skills, but you need to amend them in some way so as to have a decent discussion with me. I regard this as very unlikely. I've objected to your boorishness and ignorance, but apparently you have a big old blind spot when it comes to how you behave here. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 18:46:39 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:46:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 9:42 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:50 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > >> You already hold the sum total of human knowledge in the palm of your >> hand. Soon that device will be shipping with the AI necessary for your >> feeble human brain to actually find and consume the relevant parts of that >> total knowledge. The AI doctor will see you now. It will have also seen >> you in all the moments preceding now. It will continue to see you in all >> the moments after. Your treatment will be voluntary, of course, but the >> cost of non-compliance will likely be higher than you want to incur. Since >> the device is your menu, your waiter, and your wallet... you will be very >> effectively "cared for" by the device. >> > > ?Now what would really make this a wonderful new reality is that if I > could prescribe my own drugs. This is an immense power physicians have > over all of us. I realize the abuses could be horrendous, but maybe we > could start with an AI recommending some treatment and giving the OK to a > druggist. And leaving out opiates and some others. > > Say start with metformin - truly a wonder drug (Google it!), but taking it > without signs of diabetes is off-label use and all we can do is ask for it > from our physician?. > I imagine with Amazon drone delivery, your co-signed drugs could be flown to you within mere minutes. The decision for who should be allowed what category of drugs goes to a discussion of philosophy and politics and economics. Regardless of your philosophy or the philosophy of the legislators, there exists powerful entities who leverage the law to maintain their revenue streams. I don't expect anything this side of the singularity to break that hegemony. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 30 19:15:36 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:15:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> Message-ID: <008001d2a98a$036ecde0$0a4c69a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty >?I imagine with Amazon drone delivery, your co-signed drugs could be flown to you within mere minutes. >?The decision for who should be allowed what category of drugs goes to a discussion of philosophy and politics and economics. Regardless of your philosophy or the philosophy of the legislators, there exists powerful entities who leverage the law to maintain their revenue streams. I don't expect anything this side of the singularity to break that hegemony? Hmmm, suspect that will not fly. Patient orders opiates, drone, neighbor?s teenager shoots it down with a clever pressurized water stream, devours medications, hallucinates, slays other neighbor. Who is liable? Probably Amazon because they have the deepest pockets, and whatever company manufactured the tank used to pressurize the water jet would be the next obviously guilty deep pockets. Clearly the murderous teenager is innocent, for she has no money. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 20:11:47 2017 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:11:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If the system is designed to detect real glutamate, and you change it so > that it is not detecting real glutamate, then of course it will fail in its > job to detect real glutamate. But that is the wrong question to ask. We are > discussing qualia. Your theory is that glutamate is directly and uniquely > responsible for red qualia, and therefore if the glutamate goes, the red > qualia will go. What I am trying to show is that the glutamate can go but > the red qualia will remain. Therefore, the glutamate cannot be directly and > uniquely responsible for the red qualia. > > It's all the same. And remember, you need to stop making the mistake, which you have done again here, that when I use the term glutamate, I am talking about real glutamate. You made the claim that in your neuro substituted system, that it would have qualitative distinguishing abilities. For you, every time I say glutamate, don't think of it as real glutamate, you need think of it as if it was whatever it is, in your system, which is able to be qualitatively distinquished. Part of our consciousness is a real detection system of whatever is the neural correlate of redness. So, if we are talking about qualia, we are talking about consciously detecting the real thing, and distinguishing it from greenness. That's what consciousness is, it is a detector of qualities of nature of something in our brain. If you neurosubstitute out this ability to do this detection (either subjectively or objectively), your argument becomes invalid. Try to do the neuro substitution on the described glutamate detection system. If you do it in the same way, your conclusion must be that real glutamate can't be responsible for whatever qualities you are detecting about it. The same way for any kind of functional redness quality. When you do your simplistic neuro substitution, you must conclude that no such functionality can exist. But, if, in your system, you include something that has detectable qualities, and a way to detect them (either subjectively or objectively) there are no impossible problems, and there is a real part of nature that has a redness quality, without it being some kind of: "A miracle happens here." Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 20:14:03 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:14:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: <008001d2a98a$036ecde0$0a4c69a0$@att.net> References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <008001d2a98a$036ecde0$0a4c69a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:15 PM, spike wrote: > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Mike Dougherty > > >?I imagine with Amazon drone delivery, your co-signed drugs could be > flown to you within mere minutes. > > >?The decision for who should be allowed what category of drugs goes to a > discussion of philosophy and politics and economics. Regardless of your > philosophy or the philosophy of the legislators, there exists powerful > entities who leverage the law to maintain their revenue streams. I don't > expect anything this side of the singularity to break that hegemony? > > > > Hmmm, suspect that will not fly. Patient orders opiates, drone, > neighbor?s teenager shoots it down with a clever pressurized water stream, > devours medications, hallucinates, slays other neighbor. Who is liable? > Probably Amazon because they have the deepest pockets, and whatever company > manufactured the tank used to pressurize the water jet would be the next > obviously guilty deep pockets. Clearly the murderous teenager is innocent, > for she has no money. > > > "[drone] ... will not fly" Did you do that on purpose? I'm fairly confident Amazon has almost as much interest in protecting its drones as our military does - perhaps more so because military hardware is generally expendable and replaceable with taxpayer dollar. Every drone lost counts against Amazon's bottom line. Over time, the same manufacturer will be supplying both groups. So when the drug-seeking prole shoots, the drone countermeasures shoot back. Property-respecting, Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear; delivery drones are harmless unless provoked. The dystopian aspect of this story is not the violence - it's the promise of a total lack of violence: the proles are otherwise pacified and there's nobody left with an inclination to challenge the status quo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 20:15:06 2017 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:15:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: An analysis of why the US spends so much and how it could be fixed: https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231949 Jason On Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> I assume you're talking about someone with little or no insurance in > the US, as the MRI would likely be the same price otherwise based on a > typical large employer plan. > > On 30 March 2017 at 12:41, Dylan Distasio > wrote: > >> I assume you're talking about someone with little or no insurance in the >> US, as the MRI would likely be the same price otherwise based on a typical >> large employer plan. >> >> On Mar 29, 2017 8:10 PM, "Jason Resch" > > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:51 PM, John Clark >> > wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> ? >>>>>> ?>>? >>>>>> The USA has gone backward. In 1960 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?> ? >>>>> Note the changes in medical legislation from 01956 onward. Would you >>>>> say that has nothing to do with this? >>>>> >>>> >>>> ?Obviously not, if I thought otherwise I would not have mentioned it >>>> as this thread is about medical legislation. ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> ?> ? >>>>> Do you want to do data analysis or just do pretend science by factoid? >>>>> >>>> >>>> ?Factoid?? We're talking about the results of a experiment that lasted >>>> decades involved about a billion people and cost trillions of dollars, and >>>> the results are clear as a bell; like it or not single payer countries get >>>> more bang for their buck, they live longer and spend less, a lot less. As a >>>> libertarian I wish the facts could have produced a different conclusion but >>>> reality doesn't give a damn what I prefer. >>>> >>>> ?> ? >>>>> My point is you have to look at more than just tote factoid. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Factoid my ass! ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> In this case, you'd have to make sure you're comparing like to like. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ?Of those 30 countries you can't ?find one that is anything like the >>>> USA? Are Canadians a different species? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> . >>>>> ?> ? >>>>> Let me try another example that you'll ignore, but others might >>>>> benefit from. >>>>> ? ? >>>>> Smoking rates are lower in the US than in Japan. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ?Slightly lower that's true. The smoking in the USA has dropped a lot >>>> in recent years, from 20.9% in 2005 to >>>> 16.8% >>>> ?in 2015 ? >>>> vs 19.3% in >>>> ?Japan. ? >>>> ? >>>> >>>> >>>>> ?> ? >>>>> The Japanese life expectancy is higher. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ?I know, 83.1 years vs 78.8, yet the Japanese spend only $4150 on >>>> health with their single payer plan and the USA spends >>>> $ 9405 >>>> ? with its convoluted mess. This is not a subtle difference that can be >>>> explained away as a rounding error. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It also costs $2000 to get an MRI in the US and $200 in Japan. It's >>> actually cheaper to get a round trip ticket to Japan and get an MRI there >>> then to get one down the street. >>> >>> Jason >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > The actual cost - paid by Government, insurer or patient - of health care > is higher in the US compared to other countries with similar per capita GDP. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 20:30:15 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:30:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > > If the system is designed to detect real glutamate, and you change it so >> that it is not detecting real glutamate, then of course it will fail in its >> job to detect real glutamate. But that is the wrong question to ask. We are >> discussing qualia. Your theory is that glutamate is directly and uniquely >> responsible for red qualia, and therefore if the glutamate goes, the red >> qualia will go. What I am trying to show is that the glutamate can go but >> the red qualia will remain. Therefore, the glutamate cannot be directly and >> uniquely responsible for the red qualia. >> >> > It's all the same. And remember, you need to stop making the mistake, > which you have done again here, that when I use the term glutamate, I am > talking about real glutamate. You made the claim that in your neuro > substituted system, that it would have qualitative distinguishing > abilities. For you, every time I say glutamate, don't think of it as real > glutamate, you need think of it as if it was whatever it is, in your > system, which is able to be qualitatively distinquished. > > Part of our consciousness is a real detection system of whatever is the > neural correlate of redness. So, if we are talking about qualia, we are > talking about consciously detecting the real thing, and distinguishing it > from greenness. That's what consciousness is, it is a detector of > qualities of nature of something in our brain. If you neurosubstitute out > this ability to do this detection (either subjectively or objectively), > your argument becomes invalid. > > Try to do the neuro substitution on the described glutamate detection > system. If you do it in the same way, your conclusion must be that real > glutamate can't be responsible for whatever qualities you are detecting > about it. The same way for any kind of functional redness quality. When > you do your simplistic neuro substitution, you must conclude that no such > functionality can exist. > > But, if, in your system, you include something that has detectable > qualities, and a way to detect them (either subjectively or objectively) > there are no impossible problems, and there is a real part of nature that > has a redness quality, without it being some kind of: "A miracle happens > here." > > Brent, saying "you need to stop making the mistake" is an impolite way to treat those who are still participating in this endless merry-go-round of qualia discussion. The dress is blue-and-black and the dress is white-and-gold. The ballerina spins to the left AND to the right. I would expect that a discussion of qualia would at least be meta-conscious of the impact of perspective / subjectivity of right-and-wrong. afaik your goal of "effing the ineffable" seems to be about forcing someone (anyone/everyone) to adopt your exact understanding of this topic. "every time I say [a word], don't think of it as real [a word]" <-- where else have you ever had a conversation such that this type of argument makes ANY sense? this ongoing conversation has so ruined the term "qualia" for me that I cringed every time I saw it as a company name in the TV show "Humans" - it's become synonymous with an unanswerable question. It's a koan like "How long is a piece of string?" or "What did your face look like before you were conceived" or "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" I'm curious what value you see in forever fighting this fight. fwiw: I'm replying on-list instead of privately because I trust that we're all friends having casual conversation and I'm adding two cents to change the course to some other facet of what *I* feel is a stalled discourse. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Thu Mar 30 21:02:33 2017 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:02:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> Message-ID: <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> > On Mar 30, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > ... > The decision for who should be allowed what category of drugs goes to a discussion of philosophy and politics and economics. Regardless of your philosophy or the philosophy of the legislators, there exists powerful entities who leverage the law to maintain their revenue streams. I don't expect anything this side of the singularity to break that hegemony. > 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. From nuala.t at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 23:13:39 2017 From: nuala.t at gmail.com (Nuala Thomson) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 09:13:39 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Shadows and the concept of self In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Best read since the joke thread a little while ago. Thank you! I have many questions which I'm hoping will be answered as everyone replies, and I'll check out the literature mentioned. Thank you again. On 31 Mar 2017 1:01 am, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: > Shadows and the concept of self > > The chaotic path of my quest to better understand fundamental quantum > physics has taken me back to the ?many worlds? ideas of Hugh Everett & co. > I?m republishing this related article that author Richard L. Miller and I > wrote in 2005, with minor edits to fix typos... > > https://turingchurch.net/shadows-and-the-concept-of-self-d01ff65ce9f9 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing 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 Thu Mar 30 23:25:53 2017 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:25:53 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > If the system is designed to detect real glutamate, and you change it so > that it is not detecting real glutamate, then of course it will fail in its > job to detect real glutamate. But that is the wrong question to ask. We are > discussing qualia. Your theory is that glutamate is directly and uniquely > responsible for red qualia, and therefore if the glutamate goes, the red > qualia will go. What I am trying to show is that the glutamate can go but > the red qualia will remain. Therefore, the glutamate cannot be directly and > uniquely responsible for the red qualia. > > Brent Allsop wrote: >> It's all the same. And remember, you need to stop making the mistake, which you have done again here, that when I use the term glutamate, I am talking about real glutamate. You made the claim that in your neuro substituted system, that it would have qualitative distinguishing abilities. For you, every time I say glutamate, don't think of it as real glutamate, you need think of it as if it was whatever it is, in your system, which is able to be qualitatively distinquished. I think it isn't glutamate, but anything that can be substituted for glutamate that will result in the neurons firing in the same sequence. >> Part of our consciousness is a real detection system of whatever is the neural correlate of redness. So, if we are talking about qualia, we are talking about consciously detecting the real thing, and distinguishing it from greenness. That's what consciousness is, it is a detector of qualities of nature of something in our brain. If you neurosubstitute out this ability to do this detection (either subjectively or objectively), your argument becomes invalid. I don't think it's correct to say that our brains detect the neural correlate of redness. What I detect is redness - subjectively, because I have the experience, and objectively, because I can point to the red strawberry among the green leaves. I have no direct knowledge of what is going on in my brain. The glutamate could be changed to glycine and glutamate receptors to glycine receptors, as I have described before, and I might not notice that there had been any change, because I would still have red experiences and I would still be able to point to the red strawberry among the green leaves. >> Try to do the neuro substitution on the described glutamate detection system. If you do it in the same way, your conclusion must be that real glutamate can't be responsible for whatever qualities you are detecting about it. The same way for any kind of functional redness quality. When you do your simplistic neuro substitution, you must conclude that no such functionality can exist. If the glutamate is substituted out and the subject still has red experiences and can still distinguish red from green, what conclusion would you draw about the role of glutamate? >> But, if, in your system, you include something that has detectable qualities, and a way to detect them (either subjectively or objectively) there are no impossible problems, and there is a real part of nature that has a redness quality, without it being some kind of: "A miracle happens here." I think redness results from the functional organisation of the system, and not from a particular substrate. By analogy, I think it is like a car's ability to turn left: it results from multiple mechanical and electrical components working together in a system. The steering wheel is important, but the steering wheel by itself is not enough, and changing the material the steering wheel is made of will not make a difference to turning left provided that the new material has certain physical properties. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 23:43:16 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:43:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: Henry wrote: 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. ?----------------\\ Wow. Never thought of that. What's to stop printing meth or opiates or just about anything? This could disrupt the entire society. Not that I would be against it. Freedom from drug companies, freedom from physicians, freedom from drug lords. Millions of unintended suicides. bill w? On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Henry Rivera wrote: > > > On Mar 30, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > ... > > The decision for who should be allowed what category of drugs goes to a > discussion of philosophy and politics and economics. Regardless of your > philosophy or the philosophy of the legislators, there exists powerful > entities who leverage the law to maintain their revenue streams. I don't > expect anything this side of the singularity to break that hegemony. > > > 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing 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 Thu Mar 30 23:47:06 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:47:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] SpaceX did it! Message-ID: <6DD5FEEE-8B9A-4CAC-BA65-22DF6956F102@gmail.com> They relaunched a rocket! And got it back! I know it was just a matter of time, but now it's established. Ad astra! 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 Mar 30 23:53:23 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:53:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: <534ABC64-E1DD-4D62-8011-504D300464DF@gmail.com> On Mar 30, 2017, at 4:43 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Henry wrote: 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. > ?----------------\\ > > Wow. Never thought of that. What's to stop printing meth or opiates or just about anything? This could disrupt the entire society. Not that I would be against it. Freedom from drug companies, freedom from physicians, freedom from drug lords. Millions of unintended suicides. "Unintended suicides"? What does that mean? Maybe he meant "accidental deaths." And over what period? Right now, there are accidental deaths from legal drugs prescribe by licensed physicians. I think the rate is about 11,000 a year in the US. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 30 23:53:48 2017 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:53:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: 3D printing techniques (which tend to have minimum feature sizes somewhere around a millimeter) are generally not applicable to drugs, which must be manufactured at a molecular scale. Now, molecular manufacturing could eventually allow home printing of drugs. But that's a ways off yet. On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:43 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Henry wrote: 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. > ?----------------\\ > > Wow. Never thought of that. What's to stop printing meth or opiates or > just about anything? This could disrupt the entire society. Not that I > would be against it. Freedom from drug companies, freedom from physicians, > freedom from drug lords. Millions of unintended suicides. > > bill w? > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Henry Rivera > wrote: > >> >> > On Mar 30, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> > ... >> > The decision for who should be allowed what category of drugs goes to a >> discussion of philosophy and politics and economics. Regardless of your >> philosophy or the philosophy of the legislators, there exists powerful >> entities who leverage the law to maintain their revenue streams. I don't >> expect anything this side of the singularity to break that hegemony. >> > >> 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 msd001 at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 00:55:08 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 20:55:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2017 7:55 PM, "Adrian Tymes" wrote: 3D printing techniques (which tend to have minimum feature sizes somewhere around a millimeter) are generally not applicable to drugs, which must be manufactured at a molecular scale. Now, molecular manufacturing could eventually allow home printing of drugs. But that's a ways off yet. Right. I expect our civilization will be very different by the time molecular assembly is something we can do at home. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 31 01:11:43 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 18:11:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: <017601d2a9bb$c34fc890$49ef59b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:43 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself Henry wrote: 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. Wow. Never thought of that. What's to stop printing meth or opiates or just about anything? This could disrupt the entire society. Not that I would be against it. Freedom from drug companies, freedom from physicians, freedom from drug lords. Millions of unintended suicides. bill w? Why would we need a 3D printer to make dope? The molecules wouldn?t need to be in any particular configuration, only they must all be there. I understand some labs have managed to do genetic modification on yeast to cause them to synthesize opiates. No 3D printer needed. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 04:48:57 2017 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 06:48:57 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Shadows and the concept of self In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Nuala ! On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Nuala Thomson wrote: > Best read since the joke thread a little while ago. Thank you! > I have many questions which I'm hoping will be answered as everyone > replies, and I'll check out the literature mentioned. > > Thank you again. > > On 31 Mar 2017 1:01 am, "Giulio Prisco" wrote: > >> Shadows and the concept of self >> >> The chaotic path of my quest to better understand fundamental quantum >> physics has taken me back to the ?many worlds? ideas of Hugh Everett & co. >> I?m republishing this related article that author Richard L. Miller and I >> wrote in 2005, with minor edits to fix typos... >> >> https://turingchurch.net/shadows-and-the-concept-of-self-d01ff65ce9f9 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 13:15:03 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:15:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: <017601d2a9bb$c34fc890$49ef59b0$@att.net> References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> <017601d2a9bb$c34fc890$49ef59b0$@att.net> Message-ID: Mike Dougherty wrote: Right. I expect our civilization will be very different by the time molecular assembly is something we can do at home. ?-------- I will be very interested to hear what is going to cause big changes in our society, in your opinion, and what they will be. (Or maybe you meant that such a change would be very far in our future?). bill w? On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:11 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Thursday, March 30, 2017 4:43 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself > > > > Henry wrote: 3D printing of drugs at home by end users will disrupt this. > > > > Wow. Never thought of that. What's to stop printing meth or opiates or > just about anything? This could disrupt the entire society. Not that I > would be against it. Freedom from drug companies, freedom from physicians, > freedom from drug lords. Millions of unintended suicides. > > > > bill w? > > > > > > Why would we need a 3D printer to make dope? The molecules wouldn?t need > to be in any particular configuration, only they must all be there. I > understand some labs have managed to do genetic modification on yeast to > cause them to synthesize opiates. No 3D printer needed. > > > > 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 Fri Mar 31 15:19:36 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 11:19:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: ?> ? > Part of our consciousness is a real detection system ? > ? I've asked this more than once before but I'll ask it again because it is the key to the entire matter, WHAT'S WITH THIS "*OUR*" BUSINESS? You have direct evidence of the existence of one conscious being in the universe, and that's it. Nothing more. After that all you can do is use a theory to infer consciousness from behavior. Even if there is no proof I think it is a very reasonable assumption the theory is true, but it would be inconsistent to invoke it only when the being in question has a soft squishy brain and ignore it if the brain is hard and metallic. > > ?> ? > of whatever is the neural correlate of redness. So, if we are talking > about qualia, we are talking about consciously detecting the real thing, > and distinguishing it from greenness. > ? What evidence do ? ? you have that you can do this but a computer with a hard metallic brain can not ??? ?And ?w hat evidence do you have that you can do this and I ?,? a human with a soft squishy brain ?,? can too ??? > ?> ? > That's what consciousness is, it is a detector of qualities of nature of > something in our brain. If you neurosubstitute out this ability to do this > detection (either subjectively or objectively), your argument becomes > invalid. > ?Your thought experiment is invalid. Good thought experiments like Einstein's show things, but you're not showing that one system experiences qualia and the other doesn't, you're just stated that one does and one doesn't. You've ruled out behavior for some reason I don't understand, so until you can find some other way to tell when the system is detecting qualia and when it is not we can learn nothing from your thought experiment. > ?> ? > and there is a real part of nature that has a redness quality, without it > being some kind of: "A miracle happens here." > ?OK, suppose someday we find a real part of nature that has a redness quality ?, the next obvious question would be, "what gives this real part on nature the redness quality?". ? For anything, not just consciousness, the chain of "why did that happen?" questions can only have 2 possible outcomes: 1) The chain of questions goes on forever ?like an ?infinitely large matryoshka ?? doll ? with one question always lurking inside another. 2) The chain of questions eventually terminates in a brute fact. At that point if you want you could indeed say "a miracle happens here ?"; or you could be less dramatic and say ? there are just no more whys in the why bag. ?I think it is a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed.? ? John K Clark? ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 18:10:52 2017 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:10:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] non-physician heal thyself In-Reply-To: References: <00c101d2a8b4$4efa1e80$ecee5b80$@att.net> <00df01d2a8ba$e71e6d00$b55b4700$@att.net> <0C8C9AE8-C4ED-483A-BDDE-9423430DB3B9@alumni.virginia.edu> <017601d2a9bb$c34fc890$49ef59b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:15 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Mike Dougherty wrote: Right. I expect our civilization will be very > different by the time molecular assembly is something we can do at home. > ?-------- > > I will be very interested to hear what is going to cause big changes in > our society, in your opinion, and what they will be. (Or maybe you meant > that such a change would be very far in our future?). > > I was thinking the technology for average joe & jane (aka 'proles') to have a magical countertop maker that's able to produce any molecules you want by pushing a button is far off. Yeah, sure I guess the common feedstock atoms are available enough - but the safe synthesis of chemicals is beyond what any UL home appliances are capable of doing. If we dream of direct nano-assembly of atoms, we might be able to convince the babysitter that 1 volatile molecule at a time is safe enough - but the existence of tabletop nano-assembly is effectively a genie lamp. You want a magic serum to take away wrinkles on your face? sure, we can make you a whole new face - any color you want. Need some collagen in there before applying it, just lean into the machine while it injects... er... outputs directly into your face. You will be able to become just about anything you'd like in terms of body modification. the DIY projects you can do when meta-materials are pouring out of the magical maker device will be limited only by imagination. Of course, we generally lack much imagination, so even imagination will likely be something we're downloading from humanity's mindshare. But maybe that's the price we pay for any/all of it? I guess there could be some scary consequences of putting people/things into the feed end of the nano-assembler, because it's also a nano-DE-assembler. I'm sure all this has been discussed before. Yeah, I don't think I can see as far into the future as I think it'll be before home appliance nano-assembler genie lamps are as ubiquitous as televisions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 19:49:19 2017 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 14:49:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering In-Reply-To: References: <58D43FCE.3040506@yahoo.com> <6bc137e7-9da4-3908-f488-85ac3310cd6a@gmail.com> Message-ID: ? I think it is a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed.? ? John K Clark?? Two things: define 'feel'. If you are conscious you can feel it; you can feel it if you're conscious. Round and round. Conscious = feeling??? Data processing can be verified objectively for man and machine. Is feeling something that goes along with this (epiphenomenon?) , or it IS this? Dreams are still unaccounted for. A limited form of consciousness, maybe. Outside data get ignored; inside data get processed. bill w On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:19 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Brent Allsop > wrote: > > ?> ? >> Part of our consciousness is a real detection system ? >> > > ? > I've asked this more than once before but I'll ask it again because it is > the key to the entire matter, WHAT'S WITH THIS "*OUR*" BUSINESS? You have > direct evidence of the existence of one conscious being in the universe, > and that's it. Nothing more. After that all you can do is use a theory to > infer consciousness from behavior. Even if there is no proof I think it is > a very reasonable assumption the theory is true, but it would be > inconsistent to invoke it only when the being in question has a soft > squishy brain and ignore it if the brain is hard and metallic. > > >> >> ?> ? >> of whatever is the neural correlate of redness. So, if we are talking >> about qualia, we are talking about consciously detecting the real thing, >> and distinguishing it from greenness. >> > > ? > What evidence do > ? ? > you have that you can do this but a computer with a hard metallic brain > can not > ??? > > ?And ?w > hat evidence do you have that you can do this and I > ?,? > a human with a soft squishy brain > ?,? > can too > ??? > > >> ?> ? >> That's what consciousness is, it is a detector of qualities of nature of >> something in our brain. If you neurosubstitute out this ability to do this >> detection (either subjectively or objectively), your argument becomes >> invalid. >> > > ?Your thought experiment is invalid. Good thought experiments like > Einstein's show things, but you're not showing that one system experiences > qualia and the other doesn't, you're just stated that one does and one > doesn't. You've ruled out behavior for some reason I don't understand, so > until you can find some other way to tell when the system is detecting > qualia and when it is not we can learn nothing from your thought experiment. > > >> ?> ? >> and there is a real part of nature that has a redness quality, without it >> being some kind of: "A miracle happens here." >> > > ?OK, suppose someday we find > a real part of nature that has a redness quality > ?, the next obvious question would be, "what gives this real part on > nature the redness quality?". ? For anything, not just consciousness, the > chain of "why did that happen?" questions can only have 2 possible outcomes: > > 1) > The chain of questions goes on forever > ?like an ?infinitely large > matryoshka > ?? > doll > ? with one question always lurking inside another. > > 2) The chain of questions eventually terminates in a brute fact. At that > point if you want you could indeed say "a > miracle happens here > ?"; or you could be less dramatic and say ? > there are just no more whys in the why bag. > > ?I think it is a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when > it is being processed.? > > > ? John K Clark? > ? > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 20:35:53 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:35:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP References: <1015251837.1441192.1490991227558.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <39DEE98B-873C-47C3-B181-76716B7E7E15@gmail.com> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 7:39 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?>> ?Slaveholding George Washington ?> All rich men in Virginia were slaveholders at the time, and as > Virginia was largest and richest state the first commander and > chief was almost certainly going to be a slaveholder. ?And unlike > Jefferson at least Washington freed his slaves when he died. > Hey, better late than never. My point: he wasn't a radical here. He was part of those same upper classes, which were not much interested in radical politics and were more fearful of the lower classes overrunning them. In fact, overall, they were quite conservative. Even supposed radical Jefferson was quite the moderate and more so later in life. (Of course, one can expect moderation or dilution of views.) ?>> ?wasn't a radical. ?> The British ??though otherwise. If Washington has lost the war he > would have been hanged. ? You're conflating being a traitor with being a radical. The case is often made that selecting Washington to be the military leader was more an attempt to get both an experienced person in the position AND someone who wasn't a radical. > ?> ?Had history been slightly different ?> George Washington would ?have been the first king of the USA, > instead after 8 years he chose to give up power and go home. > That is very rare. You again trimmed what I wrote. Let me rectify that: "Had history been slightly different -- for those who actually read history -- Washington might have simply ended up as an officer in the British military. That was childhood dream. Even in the context of American politics in the 01780s, Washington was no radical." Note again, it was his childhood dream to be an officer in the British military. Being of an aristocratic bent, too, isn't at all keeping with wanting to leave office -- to retire to his estates. Also, another thing you trimmed: "We can maybe credit him for not being as harsh as other elitists (Hamilton comes to mind), especially in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion. (Washington not being bloodthirsty like Hamilton didn't call for executions.)" To me, it appears you trimmed that because you want to depict my view not as nuanced, but rather as my view as being Washington was completely evil and the worst man possible to put anywhere near power in the 01780s. When my point is rather that he wasn't the worst, but let's not fall over ourselves in praising him or the system he was a part of. > ?> ?Also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't >> about seizing power.> > > ?Then ?libertarianism? is a trivial movement that should be of > no interest to a serious minded individual. See? You said you were a libertarian, sometimes even claim you are one (as you do below), but you believe, in your heart of hearts, that seizing power if the important thing. Well, the important political thing from a libertarian perspective is that everyone be free -- not that any movement have power over everyone else. If your goal is to seize power, then you're really an authoritarian. > ?> ?It always is funny in a way that makes me want to puke how >> self-proclaimed libertarians don't know this.> ?> I've always been a ?libertarian? but at one time I was a radical > libertarian like you, and I thought government should go away > entirely, but over the years I've come to realize like it or not > government simply isn't going away this side of the singularity, > so I just must learn to live with it. Well, we can agree to disagree on the permanence of the state. The state certainly has staying power, but right up until slavery was abolished, there were quite brilliant people arguing that it was a permanent institution. Then in about a certainly the institution went into a global decline from which it never recovered. A similar thing was said by many bright folks about the Soviet empire right up until it went. Heck, for years after its fall, some not so stupid people were argue it was just a ruse, that it was rise again. > ?Yes if we were starting > from scratch we could do better, but we're not starting from > scratch. Who argued anything about starting from scratch? Again, I find you read positions into others that they simply do not hold. Of course, you trim approach to responding to others -- clipping mid-sentence -- might blind you to this. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 20:40:25 2017 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:40:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 5:58 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> ?The USA has gone backward. In 1960 > > ?> ?Note the changes in medical legislation from 01956 onward. Would you say that has nothing to do with this? ?> Obviously not, if I thought otherwise I would not have mentioned > it as this thread is about medical legislation. ? Then what effect do you believe those changes had? Did they make things better or worse overall? Did they causes healthcare prices to rise or fall overall? (I realize the case is more complicated, hence my use of "overall.") > ?> ?Do you want to do data analysis or just do pretend science by factoid? ?> Factoid?? We're talking about the results of a experiment that lasted > decades involved about a billion people and cost trillions of dollars, > and the results are clear as a bell; like it or not single payer > countries get more bang for their buck, they live longer and spend > less, a lot less. As a libertarian I wish the facts could have produced > a different conclusion but reality doesn't give a damn what I prefer. Whoa! The strict libertarian position is to allow voluntary interaction to be the rule in healthcare. The US during the 20th century, especially after the FDA act and with the spread of occupational licensing and other regulations, did not even approximate the libertarian position. So, you're comparing two (or more) different systems of government intervention in healthcare. >> In this case, you'd have to make sure you're comparing like to like. ?> Of those 30 countries you can't ?find one that is anything like > the USA? Are Canadians a different species? They had different starting positions. Now, I'm not arguing here for what the conclusions are. Recall my initial post on this thread. I asked questions about the data and conclusions that were not biased against them. You might be right about single payer being better here, but without answering my questions there's a chance -- and not a small one in my mind -- that you're comparing unlike to unlike. [snip of smoking example and your response] >>> ?Be honest Dan, if the 30 single payer countries I mentioned >>> spent twice as much on healthcare as the USA and yet their >>> citizens had shorted lives than the USA would you be >>> complaining about? sampling errors? and?? ?experimental?? bias? >>> We both know you wouldn't. ?>> > ?> ?To be honest, John, it's not entirely honest on your part to >> avoid my questions based on how you feel I might have answered >> were the data different.?? In a word, you're sidestepping... >> inconvenient questions. > ?I don't know which question of yours I've sidestepped, Well, I've only posted them twice on March 28, so here goes for a third time (rewording them slightly in hopes this helps you to answer them): 1. What are the historical rates of life expectancy for all nations? 2. Are there any nations with single payer systems that have shorter than the US life expectancy? I don't know the answers to these. If you do, then this might help you case or harm, depending on what the answers are. > but I ?know of a question of mine ?that ?you have? sidestepped?: if > the 30 single payer countries I mentioned spent twice as much > on healthcare as the USA and yet their citizens had? shorter? > lives than the USA would you be complaining about? sampling > errors? and? experimental? bias?? No, I didn't sidestep your question. I asked my questions specifically to test your question. Let's say I were as biased as you. Unthinkable, I know, but bear with me.;) Then it would be still be the correct thing to ask these questions about the data and not merely accept a single piece of data as the decisive element in our policy choices. This would even be the case if somehow we found out single payer systems, from one data table, were worse. Yeah, sure, those who detest single payer systems might cling to such data, but then folks like you -- imagining you your bias -- would have to ask those questions. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 20:53:43 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 16:53:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Shadows and the concept of self In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: https://turingchurch.net/shadows-and-the-concept-of-self-d01ff65ce9f9 > ?I do take issue with one thing you said:? ?*"?* *The MWI says that after the act of observation (measurement) the universe is split in two branches where the first has [cat dead] and [observer who remembers having seen the cat dead],?"?* ?There is only one reason I'm a fan of the MWI, unlike the other quantum interpretations it doesn't have to explain what a measurement or a observation is because they have nothing to do with it. MWI says everything that can happen does happen, and both a dead and live cat can happen. When the universe splits you split right along with everything else, and one Giulio ?sees a living cat and another equally real Giulio sees a dead cat. When the universe splits they stay split unless the 2 universes somehow become identical again; that's not going to happen if the change is made in a large macroscopic object like a cat, but if the only difference between 2 universes is which slit one photon went through then it is possible to arrange things so the 2 universes become identical again, and then the universes would merge back together into one. That's why we see weird quantum effects in the 2 slit experiment but not in large things like cats. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 31 20:49:07 2017 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 13:49:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <39DEE98B-873C-47C3-B181-76716B7E7E15@gmail.com> References: <1015251837.1441192.1490991227558.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <39DEE98B-873C-47C3-B181-76716B7E7E15@gmail.com> Message-ID: <011a01d2aa60$3ebe58d0$bc3b0a70$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan >?Heck, for years after its fall, some not so stupid people were argue it was just a ruse, that it was rise again? Dan They were partly right: it rose again. In a sense. It isn?t the complete Soviet Union, but it managed to overthrow communism and its people aren?t starving now. It made the difficult transition away from communism. They?re tricky bahstids I tells ya, gotta watch em. They will lure us into complacency, then mess with our elections. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 21:48:39 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 17:48:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Single Payer Healthcare In-Reply-To: References: <74C02845-D558-44F0-83D5-6CB506A2BA8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> >> ?>? >> Factoid?? We're talking about the results of a experiment that lasted >> ? ? >> decades involved about a billion people and cost trillions of dollars, >> ? ? >> and the results are clear as a bell; like it or not single payer >> ? ? >> countries get more bang for their buck, they live longer and spend >> ? ? >> less, a lot less. As a libertarian I wish the facts could have produced >> ? ? >> a different conclusion but reality doesn't give a damn what I prefer. > > > ?> ? > Whoa! The strict libertarian position is > ? [...]? > ?Irrelevant. The USA system does not conform with the ? strict libertarian position ? ?and ?n either does the single payer system of the 30 countries that beat the hell out of the USA system ?in both cost and quality. However the USA is closer to the strict libertarian position ? than the single payer plan. As a libertarian I wish I could say it was the other way around but I can not because I value the truth even more than I value libertarianism. ? ?>> ? >> ?I don't know which question of yours I've sidestepped, > > > ?> ? > Well, I've only posted them twice on March 28, so here goes for a third > time (rewording them slightly in hopes this helps you to answer them): > > 1. What are the historical rates of life expectancy for all nations? > ?In all the 31 nations I mentioned, including the USA, both the life expectancy and the percentage of GNP spent on healthcare have increased, some much more than others, and it is by examining those differential increases we can learn things. ? 2. Are there any nations with single payer systems that have shorter than > the US life expectancy? > ?I honestly don't know. I would guess the answer is yes but I don't know for certain. I'm sure you could find out in a hour or two with a little help from Google, I could too but I'm not going to because the answer doesn't interest me. If there is such a country you can be certain they spend dramatically less on healthcare than the USA, every country does, so there would be no surprise and nothing to learn if their citizens have shorter lives. ?We can learn from the 30 countries that spend less and get more not from the countries that spend less and get less. ?> >> ?>? >> ?but I know of a question of mine that you have sidestepped: if >> ? ? >> the 30 single payer countries I mentioned spent twice as much >> ? ? >> on healthcare as the USA and yet their citizens had shorter >> ? ? >> lives than the USA would you be complaining about sampling >> ? ? >> errors and experimental bias? > > ?> ? > No, I didn't sidestep your question. > ?Well it sure seemed that way to me because I looked and looked but I couldn't find a "yes" or a "no" anywhere. > ?> ? > it would be still be the correct thing to ask these questions about the > data and not merely accept a single piece of data as the decisive element > in our policy choices. > ?This is not a ? single piece of data ?!! This is the result of a experiment lasting decades involving a billion people and trillions of dollars and no matter how you try to spin it the less libertarian side won. I really and truly wish it had gone the other way but unlike Trump I refuse to wage war on reality. John K Clark ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 31 23:27:40 2017 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 19:27:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] GOV _ TRUMP In-Reply-To: <39DEE98B-873C-47C3-B181-76716B7E7E15@gmail.com> References: <1015251837.1441192.1490991227558.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <39DEE98B-873C-47C3-B181-76716B7E7E15@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> The British ??though otherwise. If Washington has lost the war he >> ? ? >> would have been hanged. ? > > > You're conflating being a traitor with being a radical. > ?A traitor ?is a radical who lost, a patriot is a radical who won. ?> ? > Had history been slightly different -- for those who actually read history > -- Washington might have simply ended up as an officer in the British > military. > ?Before the Revolution Washington ?WAS a officer in the British military ? and fought for them in the ? French and Indian ?War. ?Then the British behavior radicalized him. ? ?> ? > Being of an aristocratic bent, too, isn't at all keeping with wanting to > leave office -- to retire to his estates. > ?Well then let's have three cheers for ? ?aristocrats?, maybe he wasn't a radical after all, most radicals who gain power ?never want to give it up. > ?> >>> ?>>? >>> ?Also, libertarianism as a form of radical politics isn't >>> ? ? >>> about seizing power. >> >> > ? >> ?>> ? >> Then ?libertarianism? is a trivial movement that should be of >> ? ? >> no interest to a serious minded individual. > > > ?> ? > See? > ?No.? > ?>? > You said you were a libertarian, > ?Yes.? > ?> ? > sometimes even claim you are one > ?Yes. > ?> ? > but you believe, in your heart of hearts, that seizing power if the > important thing. > ?Yes.? > ?> ? > Well, the important political thing from a libertarian perspective is that > everyone be free > ?Yes.? > ?> ? > not that any movement have power over everyone else. > ? Dan, in my younger days I may have been somewhat naive in my libertarian ideas, but I was never THAT naive. It may come as a shock to you but not everyone agrees ? with you that abolishing every nation state on the face of the earth would be a good idea ?;? so if you're going to accomplish th ?at? grand goal you're going to have to push them. And elementary physics will tell you that you can't push something over the finish line without power. Will the powerful people who implement this radical change in how civilization is organized be themselves ? ? corrupted by that power? Very likely. That's one reason radical political change seldom makes people happier. > ?> ? > Well, we can agree to disagree on the permanence of the state. The state > certainly has staying power, > ?Six thousand years and counting.? > ?> ? > but right up until slavery was abolished, there were quite brilliant > people arguing that it was a permanent institution. > ?I was once all enthusiastic about Privately Produced Law and Private Protection Agencies, and if we were starting from scratch I still think that would be the way to go, but we are 6000 years from scratch. And there is another problem, the countime clock to the singularity. Things are advancing on the AI front faster than I expected, I no longer think there is a snowball's chance in hell of making gargantuan changes in the social structure (like abolishing the nation state) before the singularity without wrecking civilization. > ?> ? > Who argued anything about starting from scratch? > ?Well, one of us is arguing that nearly every social contract in existence ?should be immediately torn up and one of us is not. So you tell me which one is arguing in favor of starting from scratch and which one is not. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: