From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 02:54:48 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 22:54:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think an observatory of the heavens *should* be built on a sacred site. I do think those opposed are sort of nitwits, but I think those who don't recognize the use and importance of sacred sites are a different and more bitter kind of nitwit. If a site is treated as holy for such a long time it can have profound effects on the human mind as a mental/cultural reservoir. Similar to the way any object is used to impart cultural knowledge which survives the individual human (such as a tool or record-keeping instrument) which I like to call 'prosthetic'. A book and a wrench are both prosthetics--they extend the abilities of humans to do what we will (or are determined to) do. If we do mining on a share of land, it will become a mine, and even if it collapsed, humans living many years in the future could know that it was a mine. The existence of the mine encompasses everything within. Or maybe a school is a better example. A school lasts longer than its pupils, and serves as a continuous repository and source of cultural knowledge. A school is a structure used to impart cultural knowledge in the form of learning about the world and how it works, as well as (ideally though commonly diluted) reverence for knowledge-seeking. A temple is a structure used to impart cultural knowledge in the form of reverence for the concepts of humility, dedication, curiosity, courage, &c. I would argue that it has equally profound and positive effects on the human mind as a school. In particular this sacred object has cultural impact probably lasting since humans first discovered it, and teaches dedicated stewardship to the Earth. Which is a trait that is lacking in the modern day and literally leading to the decimation of the whole human civilization. Some sacred sites may be co-opted by greed and lust, but so may some schools. Certain sites have been in continuous operation for thousands of years--millennia of information, condensed into codes, and creeds, and behaviors, and states of mind. Of course this technology would be used to take advantage of people. Probably because those using it for good got stepped on by those advantage-takers, as is often the case with valuable pieces of land or technology. I think that it's inevitable and good for some of these old things to merge with modern tech, though. There doesn't need to be a conflict here so it is probably the result of poor mediation. Due to people being selfish and unempathetic. When the Taliban blew up those Buddhist statues, were you like "Yeah, fuck 'em up boys!"? P.S. There are records from ~2500 years ago of magnifying lenses. Do you think somebody could have realized they could use one lens to magnify the other? It seems likely. Makes me wonder if there is perhaps a sparing number of ancient (large) microscope-type devices. Just a fleeting thought. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 18:29:07 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 14:29:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 11:00 PM Will Steinberg wrote: *> If a site is treated as holy for such a long time it can have profound > effects on the human mind* > I agree the effects can be profound, but not in a positive way. > > as a mental/cultural reservoir. > A huge reservoir of superstition and nonsense yes. > > *Similar to the way any object is used to impart cultural knowledge > which survives the individual human (such as a tool or record-keeping > instrument)* > The Thirty Meter Telescope is a tool and I think it will will enrich our cultural knowledge far more than than worshiping some silly God that a tiny minority of jackasses think lives on top of that mountain. And I have to say, if constructing that telescope will kill that God He's a pretty third rate God. Why is such a delicate weak being worthy of worship? > > *A temple is a structure used to impart cultural knowledge in the form > of reverence for the concepts of humility, dedication, curiosity, courage* > I agree places of worship can impart courage, it took a lot of courage to fly airliners into skyscrapers, but I can see no evidence it can add to those other virtues you mentioned, especially curiosity. If they had an ounce of curiosity in there soul they would consider it a great honor that such a magnificent instrument was going to be built on top of the mountain that they love. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 19:31:30 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 15:31:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You're a cherry-picking amoral git. Science? YOU MEAN LIKE THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT?!!? Sounds evil bro. I'll pass. As if some obstinate old fool has any bearing on our universe, a universe which is defined by what the current human mind can only perceive as paradoxes (w/p duality, gravitational singularity, the hard problem of consicousness, free will vs. determinism, etc.) You are equally as foolish as those who dogmatically misuse religion to state that they know how the universe works. Come off it. You don't have to believe a book written by humans is the word of gods, in order to have spiritual inclinations and a curiosity about what the universe is. As if science hasn't been marred by idiotic false claims--plum pudding, anyone? How about microzyma? Your crippled thinking is anti-knowledge, anti-science, and anti-pleasant. People project hate onto those who have similar issues. You have such a beef with those close-minded fundamentalists, because you are precisely one of them. Thankfully, I know that many, many people smarter and more lauded than you--including our past and present's groundbreaking physicists, as well as modern neuroscientists--have learned enough about the universe to realize how perfectly dumb it is to make overarching claims about a universe we are nowhere close to understanding, from a consicous mind which we are even less close to understanding. I pity you and I think you should probably see a therapist for depression. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 1 19:59:24 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 12:59:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004301d4721d$64016ca0$2c0445e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope >?You're a cherry-picking amoral git? should probably see a therapist for depression? I would say this post qualifies as ad hominem attack, the kind I was sincerely hoping we could put behind us and leave back there. As we say in the chess world, play the board, not the man. Attack the idea if you wish, but do be kind to each other. We are among friends here, the kind who disagree on things. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Nov 1 22:07:42 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:07:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We know John and the descriptions of him just don't fit. However, those very descriptions tell us a lot about you. bill w On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:36 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > You're a cherry-picking amoral git. > > Science? YOU MEAN LIKE THE TUSKEGEE EXPERIMENT?!!? Sounds evil bro. > I'll pass. > > As if some obstinate old fool has any bearing on our universe, a universe > which is defined by what the current human mind can only perceive as > paradoxes (w/p duality, gravitational singularity, the hard problem of > consicousness, free will vs. determinism, etc.) > > You are equally as foolish as those who dogmatically misuse religion to > state that they know how the universe works. Come off it. > > You don't have to believe a book written by humans is the word of gods, in > order to have spiritual inclinations and a curiosity about what the > universe is. > > As if science hasn't been marred by idiotic false claims--plum pudding, > anyone? How about microzyma? > > Your crippled thinking is anti-knowledge, anti-science, and > anti-pleasant. People project hate onto those who have similar issues. > You have such a beef with those close-minded fundamentalists, because you > are precisely one of them. > > Thankfully, I know that many, many people smarter and more lauded than > you--including our past and present's groundbreaking physicists, as well as > modern neuroscientists--have learned enough about the universe to realize > how perfectly dumb it is to make overarching claims about a universe we are > nowhere close to understanding, from a consicous mind which we are even > less close to understanding. I pity you and I think you should probably > see a therapist for depression. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Nov 2 11:55:07 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:55:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 19:37, Will Steinberg wrote: > > many, many people --including our past and present groundbreaking > physicists, as well as modern neuroscientists--have learned enough > about the universe to realize how perfectly dumb it is to make > overarching claims about a universe we are nowhere close to > understanding, from a conscious mind which we are even less > close to understanding. > _______________________________________________ Quote from - In the case of science, the danger is that of scientism, the claim that science provides a unique and privileged source of truth on all matters. There are many reasons to resist this tendency. As philosopher Ray Monk reminds us, there are many questions that do not have scientific answers because they were not legitimate scientific questions to begin with. Many of these questions concern the things that are most important of all: faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and goodness ? these do not lie in the territory of science. All of us ? including scientists ? have an interest in resisting the barren intellectual monoculture of scientism. In conclusion, most people do not believe in an inherent conflict between science and religion, and the historical evidence suggests that they are correct. If we look beneath the surface when tensions do arise, we typically find deep-seated conflicts between values that have only tenuous connections to science and religion. -------------------------- Quote from - Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that rely on words like ?merely?, ?only?, ?simply?, or ?nothing more than?. Scientism restricts human inquiry. It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can?t catch in his nets does not exist. Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific. -------------------------------- There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 16:18:02 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 11:18:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many of these questions concern the things that are most important of all: faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and goodness ? these do not lie in the territory of science. bill k Well, too bad for everybody except physics and chemistry and some biology. Or not. Develop a measuring instrument. Use it until you have proved its reliability. Apply it to some problem and find that measurements correlate with something important, which means that you can use it to predict that something. Is this not science? Conclusion: if you can measure something and predict something with some accuracy, I say you have done science. Science does not imply certain areas of study. Repeat - NOT. Of course some things are hard to define, like intelligence. Whether you accept the tests as measuring intelligence, they do an excellent job of predicting important things. Clearly they measure something, whatever you choose to call it. (personally, I'd like to see measurements of dark energy, and other concepts made up so that the theoretical equations make sense - some of these concepts make no more sense than saying God did it) If this is an attack on soft science, then fine. Every area needs to improve its precision, generalizability, and so on. But to call something not a science just because it cannot measure things to the 23rd decimal place is just foolish. Classically throwing the baby out with the bath water. Psychology is my area and a lot of it is not at all scientific. That is why I got out of clinical to begin my career. A lot of stupid, unreliable studies done with questionable statistics - yes, all of that. More than plenty, I say. But we are contributing everywhere, whether it is designing dashboards for spaceships, or analyzing the dosage of an antipsychotic, or finding out which brain areas do what, and tons more. So I would take Bill K's stance as a challenge to do better science, not find some new name to call it. bill w On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 7:00 AM BillK wrote: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 at 19:37, Will Steinberg wrote: > > > > > many, many people --including our past and present groundbreaking > > physicists, as well as modern neuroscientists--have learned enough > > about the universe to realize how perfectly dumb it is to make > > overarching claims about a universe we are nowhere close to > > understanding, from a conscious mind which we are even less > > close to understanding. > > _______________________________________________ > > Quote from - > < > https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/2016/06/28/are-science-religion-conflict/ > > > > In the case of science, the danger is that of scientism, the claim > that science provides a unique and privileged source of truth on all > matters. There are many reasons to resist this tendency. As > philosopher Ray Monk reminds us, there are many questions that do not > have scientific answers because they were not legitimate scientific > questions to begin with. Many of these questions concern the things > that are most important of all: faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and > goodness ? these do not lie in the territory of science. All of us ? > including scientists ? have an interest in resisting the barren > intellectual monoculture of scientism. > > In conclusion, most people do not believe in an inherent conflict > between science and religion, and the historical evidence suggests > that they are correct. If we look beneath the surface when tensions do > arise, we typically find deep-seated conflicts between values that > have only tenuous connections to science and religion. > -------------------------- > > Quote from - > < > https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/what-scientism > > > > Scientism, on the other hand, is a speculative worldview about the > ultimate reality of the universe and its meaning. Despite the fact > that there are millions of species on our planet, scientism focuses an > inordinate amount of its attention on human behavior and beliefs. > Rather than working within carefully constructed boundaries and > methodologies established by researchers, it broadly generalizes > entire fields of academic expertise and dismisses many of them as > inferior. With scientism, you will regularly hear explanations that > rely on words like ?merely?, ?only?, ?simply?, or ?nothing more than?. > Scientism restricts human inquiry. > > It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and > remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the > natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the > scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying > that whatever he can?t catch in his nets does not exist. Once you > accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have > adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, > or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific. > -------------------------------- > > There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, > Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. > - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio > > > 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 Fri Nov 2 18:12:54 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:12:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:00 AM BillK wrote: > > *> there are many questions that do not have scientific answers because > they were not legitimate scientific questions to begin with. Many of these > questions concern the things that are most important of all: faith, hope, > love, truth, beauty, and goodness ? these do not lie in the territory of > science.* Hope, love, beauty, and goodness are all important virtues in my opinion but I don't expect science to say anything about them. Science can inform me what the universe's opinion about various things are but these virtues are not about the Universe's opinion they are about mine, and even the Universe doesn't know more about my opinion than I do. But truth is different, science can help us get more of that. As for faith, in my opinion faith is not a virtue at all, I think it's a vice. > > *> most people do not believe in an inherent conflict between science and > religion,* I am not most people. > > *and the historical evidence suggests that they are correct.* Tell that to the religious nuts who burned Giordano Bruno alive or threatened to torture Galileo and imprisoned him for life or to the Taliban who kill doctors who try to vaccinate children. Or tell it to any evangelical Trump voter who thinks the universe started not 13.8 billion years ago but in 4004 BC . > * >we typically find deep-seated conflicts between values that have only > tenuous connections to science and religion.* I don't understand why so many people typically feel that in order to be a good person one must be a religious apologist. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 18:47:07 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:47:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:23 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *Develop a measuring instrument. Use it until you have proved its > reliability. Apply it to some problem and find that measurements correlate > with something important, which means that you can use it to predict that > something. Is this not science? **Conclusion: if you can measure > something and predict something with some accuracy, I say you have done > science.* > I agree with that but I think the believers in strict instrumentalism push this too far, they don't want me to say anything about atoms or electrons or electricity, I should just say if I change the arrangement of a experiment in a certain way the needle on a voltmeter will change from 7.4 to 7.2 and I should not draw any larger conclusions larger than that. > > *Science does not imply certain areas of study. Repeat - NOT.* > Yes, science is defined by the method to study not the area being studied. If you're using the scientific method then you're doing science. * > (personally, I'd like to see measurements of dark energy, and other > concepts made up so that the theoretical equations make sense - some of > these concepts make no more sense than saying God did it)* > But they've got to call it something and dark energy is as good a name as any, scientists freely admit that although it makes up 70% of the universe they have no idea what the hell it is, it is the deepest mystery in physics. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 19:02:58 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 14:02:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: scientists freely admit that although it makes up 70% of the universe they have no idea what the hell it is, it is the deepest mystery in physics. John K Clark Yes, Good. Now if some people would get off their high horse and quit trashing other professions the world might be a tad better. Trying to do better science is always a good goal. bill w On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:51 PM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:23 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > *Develop a measuring instrument. Use it until you have proved its >> reliability. Apply it to some problem and find that measurements correlate >> with something important, which means that you can use it to predict that >> something. Is this not science? **Conclusion: if you can measure >> something and predict something with some accuracy, I say you have done >> science.* >> > > I agree with that but I think the believers in strict instrumentalism push > this too far, they don't want me to say anything about atoms or electrons > or electricity, I should just say if I change the arrangement of a > experiment in a certain way the needle on a voltmeter will change from 7.4 > to 7.2 and I should not draw any larger conclusions larger than that. > > >> > *Science does not imply certain areas of study. Repeat - NOT.* >> > > Yes, science is defined by the method to study not the area being studied. > If you're using the scientific method then you're doing science. > > * > (personally, I'd like to see measurements of dark energy, and other >> concepts made up so that the theoretical equations make sense - some of >> these concepts make no more sense than saying God did it)* >> > > But they've got to call it something and dark energy is as good a name as > any, scientists freely admit that although it makes up 70% of the universe > they have no idea what the hell it is, it is the deepest mystery in physics. > > 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 2 23:13:36 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 16:13:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: BillK wrote (quoted) "most people do not believe in an inherent conflict between science and religion" Perhaps this is the case. However, religion is an observed fact among one kind of primate. Science can ask: Why do people have religions? The capacity to have religions, like all behaviors, is the result of either direct selection or selection for something else that left humans with this capacity. Keith From avant at sollegro.com Fri Nov 2 22:50:14 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 15:50:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:00 AM BillK wrote: >> >> *> there are many questions that do not have scientific answers because >> they were not legitimate scientific questions to begin with. Many of >> these questions concern the things that are most important of all: >> faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and goodness ? these do not lie in the >> territory of science.* > > Hope, love, beauty, and goodness are all important virtues in my opinion > but I don't expect science to say anything about them. Science can inform > me what the universe's opinion about various things are but these virtues > are not about the Universe's opinion they are about mine, and even the > Universe doesn't know more about my opinion than I do. But truth is > different, science can help us get more of that. As for faith, in my > opinion faith is not a virtue at all, I think it's a vice. You are right in that science cannot say anything about those virtues. That is both a strength and a weakness of science. It is due to the empirical nature of science. Science is the art of using experiments to prune away falsehoods. What this leaves you with is a mixture of truths and unfalsifiable hypotheses. Now keep in mind that there are many reasons why a hypothesis could be unfalsifiable. For example, limited resources. I could hypothesize that crashing red-giant stars together would make a blue giant star. Since we cannot yet crash stars together on purpose, my hypothesis is unfalsifiable which does not necessarily make it true or false. Another reason hypotheses might be unfalsefiable is for legal or ethical reasons. I could hypothesize that human centipedes would not live very long unless the people involved happened to all be the same blood type and HLA tissue type. Since creation of human centipedes is unethical and illegal, the hypothesis could never be tested. Less disgusting but equally unethical would be conducting experiments regarding things like love and hope because these entail emotional manipulation of other people. A third reason a hypothesis could be untestable is that it is logically impossible to falsify. For example, solipsism would fall into this category as would many other religious claims. All that being said regarding the limitations of science. Now lets turn our attention away from science, the art of determining falsehood through empiricism, and turn it to math, the art of generating truth. Math is all about truth. A mathematical theorem is true in every place and every time. If a mathematical theorem fails to be predictive of your world, it is because you have misapplied it to something that falls outside of the scope its intended axioms. The theorem itself is inevitably true. Math too has its limitations, however, and its limitations are interesting in relation to those of science and can be contrasted with them to good effect. One notable limitation to math is the notion of uncomputable numbers and functions. Another is Goedel's Incompleteness, which states that in any consistent system of axioms there are true statements that are nevertheless impossible to prove within that system. Now I state that it is self-evident that the intersection of the set of unfalsifiable hypotheses and the set of unprovable truths is non-empty. I leave the proof as an exercise to the reader. It might be possible that some religion somewhere might be an element of that set. This is especially possible if we live in a simulation. > Tell that to the religious nuts who burned Giordano Bruno alive or > threatened to torture Galileo and imprisoned him for life or to the > Taliban > who kill doctors who try to vaccinate children. Or tell it to any > evangelical Trump voter who thinks the universe started not 13.8 billion > years ago but in 4004 BC . But the very gravity of these things should inform you that regardless of the truth of their dogma, all religions are very real entities. This goes back to my argument that all Shannon information has an energy content. If you don't believe me then do a BOTEC using Landauer's principle for how much energy it would take to erase all the information in the world pertaining to radical Islam for example. You would find it to be quite substantial. > I don't understand why so many people typically feel that in order to be > a good person one must be a religious apologist. I don't think it is about being a good person, so much as it is about being politically correct to avoid offending people. I am reminded about an apocryphal story that when Voltaire was on his deathbed, a priest urged Voltaire to renounce Satan. To which Votaire supposedly replied, "I am sorry, father, but now is not the time to make new enemies." Stuart LaForge From sjatkins at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 11:13:40 2018 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 04:13:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Having been deeply into spirituality for a time I well know its strengths. However I found little there that I can trust more than what the best science an rationality I am modestly capable of has verified. I fervently wished it was otherwise. I really wanted to BELIEVE. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:27 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > John Clark wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:00 AM BillK wrote: > >> > >> *> there are many questions that do not have scientific answers because > >> they were not legitimate scientific questions to begin with. Many of > >> these questions concern the things that are most important of all: > >> faith, hope, love, truth, beauty, and goodness ? these do not lie in the > >> territory of science.* > > > > Hope, love, beauty, and goodness are all important virtues in my opinion > > but I don't expect science to say anything about them. Science can inform > > me what the universe's opinion about various things are but these virtues > > are not about the Universe's opinion they are about mine, and even the > > Universe doesn't know more about my opinion than I do. But truth is > > different, science can help us get more of that. As for faith, in my > > opinion faith is not a virtue at all, I think it's a vice. > > You are right in that science cannot say anything about those virtues. > That is both a strength and a weakness of science. It is due to the > empirical nature of science. Science is the art of using experiments to > prune away falsehoods. What this leaves you with is a mixture of truths > and unfalsifiable hypotheses. > > Now keep in mind that there are many reasons why a hypothesis could be > unfalsifiable. > > For example, limited resources. I could hypothesize that crashing > red-giant stars together would make a blue giant star. Since we cannot yet > crash stars together on purpose, my hypothesis is unfalsifiable which does > not necessarily make it true or false. > > Another reason hypotheses might be unfalsefiable is for legal or ethical > reasons. I could hypothesize that human centipedes would not live very > long unless the people involved happened to all be the same blood type and > HLA tissue type. Since creation of human centipedes is unethical and > illegal, the hypothesis could never be tested. > > Less disgusting but equally unethical would be conducting experiments > regarding things like love and hope because these entail emotional > manipulation of other people. > > A third reason a hypothesis could be untestable is that it is logically > impossible to falsify. For example, solipsism would fall into this > category as would many other religious claims. > > All that being said regarding the limitations of science. Now lets turn > our attention away from science, the art of determining falsehood through > empiricism, and turn it to math, the art of generating truth. Math is all > about truth. > > A mathematical theorem is true in every place and every time. If a > mathematical theorem fails to be predictive of your world, it is because > you have misapplied it to something that falls outside of the scope its > intended axioms. The theorem itself is inevitably true. > > Math too has its limitations, however, and its limitations are interesting > in relation to those of science and can be contrasted with them to good > effect. One notable limitation to math is the notion of uncomputable > numbers and functions. Another is Goedel's Incompleteness, which states > that in any consistent system of axioms there are true statements that are > nevertheless impossible to prove within that system. > > Now I state that it is self-evident that the intersection of the set of > unfalsifiable hypotheses and the set of unprovable truths is non-empty. I > leave the proof as an exercise to the reader. It might be possible that > some religion somewhere might be an element of that set. This is > especially possible if we live in a simulation. > > > Tell that to the religious nuts who burned Giordano Bruno alive or > > threatened to torture Galileo and imprisoned him for life or to the > > Taliban > > who kill doctors who try to vaccinate children. Or tell it to any > > evangelical Trump voter who thinks the universe started not 13.8 billion > > years ago but in 4004 BC . > > But the very gravity of these things should inform you that regardless of > the truth of their dogma, all religions are very real entities. This goes > back to my argument that all Shannon information has an energy content. If > you don't believe me then do a BOTEC using Landauer's principle for how > much energy it would take to erase all the information in the world > pertaining to radical Islam for example. > > You would find it to be quite substantial. > > > I don't understand why so many people typically feel that in order to be > > a good person one must be a religious apologist. > > I don't think it is about being a good person, so much as it is about > being politically correct to avoid offending people. I am reminded about > an apocryphal story that when Voltaire was on his deathbed, a priest urged > Voltaire to renounce Satan. To which Votaire supposedly replied, "I am > sorry, father, but now is not the time to make new enemies." > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 11:20:10 2018 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 04:20:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Surely to say it happened because of natural selection is not much different than just saying "it happened". I think that both science and religion are outgrowths of a very human seeking to know, and for meaning and transcendence. I think that ultimately the best and most authentic of science/technology leads inescapably to the need for all the best aspects and consideration of the deepest questions of spirituality. Starting with what does it mean to wisely choose who we want to be and how we will be to others that choose differently as we gain the ability to mold physical reality, including our own very being, as we choose. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:16 PM Keith Henson wrote: > BillK wrote (quoted) > > "most people do not believe in an inherent conflict between science > and religion" > > Perhaps this is the case. However, religion is an observed fact among > one kind of primate. > > Science can ask: > > Why do people have religions? > > The capacity to have religions, like all behaviors, is the result of > either direct selection or selection for something else that left > humans with this capacity. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjatkins at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 11:41:17 2018 From: sjatkins at gmail.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 04:41:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My current plan for this fantasy outcome is: 1) Buy a house or perhaps two. Be the snowbird in style 2) Buy a lot of fancy computers of my own. Not that I do that well at keeping the modest collection I already own busy doing things of some putative worth 3) Fully fund my current startup idea 4) Fund several "vanity" companies that I don't know will ever operate in the black but are all doing things I care about. One for instance would have as it purpose proving the full power of Lisp over all other languages. :) 5) Funds to many causes including a) Machine phase nanotechnology; b) AGIT; c) space colonization; d) more varieties of government (and no government) and the space for them to operate; e) life-extension/longevity/as close to immortality as we can get 6) start a fully rational, highly futurist sociopolitical/religious movement or at least disseminate ideas on how and why to do such a thing. That should keep me busy to and beyond when practical deathlessness kicks in. :) On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:44 PM John Grigg wrote: > The three big discussion points for lotteries seem to be, what would you > do with the money if you won, what are the odds of winning, and are > lotteries a bad thing? > > Personally, I would like to think that I could enjoy life more than I do > now, if I won the l.6 plus billion lottery. I have two huge zeppelins > built! And with one, I would take it from city to city, where science > fiction and fantasy conventions would be held on board my aircraft! The > second zeppelin would be loaned to the Doctors without Borders nonprofit > organization, to aid them in their work with the poor and sick. > > > https://www.thebalanceeveryday.com/lottery-tips-from-powerball-winners-4129586 > > I realize many people have allowed lotto wins to ruin them, and there are > countless stories about this phenomena. > > > https://abcnews.go.com/US/lottery-jackpot-winners-lost-big/story?id=36313525 > > I have a friend who likes to say, regarding the odds of winning, "I am > just giving the universe a chance to be extremely nice to me, if it so > chooses!" Lol > > > https://www.bankrate.com/personal-finance/why-you-shouldnt-buy-lottery-tickets/ > > The funds for lotteries seem to go towards worthy beneficiaries, like the > arts. But certainly, gambling addiction can be a problem for some. > > Anyway, let me know what you think... : ) > > "In the middle of the 20th century, when lotteries first started in the > U.S., they were sold to states as a way to benefit the American public > . > That suggests that bigger and bigger jackpots should mean more tax dollars > to spend on public services like education. But that isn?t happening. So > what?s really going on? > > First, let?s look at how lottery jackpots got so big. This particular > jackpot started at $40 million in July, and week after week, no one drew > the winning numbers, but the tickets keep getting bought. > > You too have the chance to win the biggest Mega Millions jackpot ever with > the simple purchase of a $2 ticket. However, your chances are pretty slim. > With a 1 in 300 million chance of picking the matching numbers, you are > three times more likely to be killed by a vending machine > . > An easier way to really wrap your head around your chances: It?s like > flipping a coin and getting heads 30 times in a row." > > > https://theconversation.com/the-mega-millions-jackpot-is-now-more-than-1-billion-where-does-all-that-lottery-profit-really-go-105279 > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Sat Nov 3 14:48:14 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 10:48:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > *there are many reasons why a hypothesis could be unfalsifiable. For > example, limited resources. I could hypothesize that crashing red-giant > stars together would make a blue giant star. Since we cannot yet crash > stars together on purpose, my hypothesis is unfalsifiable which does not > necessarily make it true or false.* > It's always nice if a theory is falsifiable but I think philosophers like Karl Popper emphasised it too much, even if we lack the ability to falsify a idea it's not necessarily useless. There is actually a hypothesis that you describe above used to explain the existence of rare Blue Straggler Stars. Globular Clusters contain some of the oldest stars in the universe and consist almost entirely of small red stars because the clusters are so old anything larger should have run out of hydrogen fuel and burned out long ago, but there are a very few giant main sequence Blue Straggler Stars mixed in among all those old small red stars. Blue Stragglers seem to be very young but there is almost no gas or dust in Globular Clusters, so how did they get made? The hypothesis is that 2 old red stars collided only a few million years ago and merged forming a giant blue star. The star isn't really young, the collision just gave it a facelift that makes it look young. Another unfalsifiable idea would be the theory of continental drift, although I suppose both could be said to be unfalsifiable in practice but not logically unfalsifiable such as the hypothesis an irresistible force could move a unmovable object, or the theory that the entire universe was only created 5 minutes ago complete with dinosaur bones in the ground and memories of me being in the first grade. > > *A third reason a hypothesis could be untestable is that it is logically > impossible to falsify. For example, solipsism would fall into this category* I agree. > > *as would many other religious claims.* > If God existed, that is to say a intelligence who created and operates the world, then Teleology, the idea everything has a purpose or goal, should be one of the fundamental aspects of physics; a world with Teleology should exhibit different phenomenon than a world without it and so should be accessible to the scientific method. * > Now I state that it is self-evident that the intersection of the set of > unfalsifiable hypotheses and the set of unprovable truths is non-empty. * I agree, and that's why even unfalsifiable hypotheses can be useful. Unlike pure mathematics science does not demand perfection, it does not insist that every part of it be proven to be correct, it only wants every part of it to be shown to be probably approximately correct. > > *I am reminded about an apocryphal story that when Voltaire was on his > deathbed, a priest urged Voltaire to renounce Satan. To which Votaire > supposedly replied, "I am sorry, father, but now is not the time to make > new enemies."* > I hadn't heard that one before, I love it! John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 3 16:22:34 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 11:22:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Humans of long ago may have had no conception of mental illness. When America was 'discovered' several tribes (and some in Africa) raised paranoid schizophrenics to the level of shaman. They had visions and hearings that no one else could experience, so they must be nearer those hallucinations - aka God's little helper. This may have been the start, long, long ago, of believing in things very few could see or hear. If they had the capability of being unseen and unheard, they must have extraordinary powers - gods. The shamans claimed all sorts of power: rain, healing, etc. Another way of looking at it (not inconsistent with the above) is that parents looked above themselves for the authority to enforce their child-raising demands. "They can see you even if you can't see them, and they are watching you to see if you behave like you should (cue in 'He knows when you've been sleeping, He knows when you are awake..............). So a God or gods, then, are the ultimate authority backing up the parent and the shaman. Or even another way of looking at it: gods are simply the generalization of authority upwards. (cue in Oedipal complex) Little boys have to obey big boys, big boys have to obey men, men the shaman, the shaman the demigods, demigods the gods, and so on. So gods were invented as a source of ultimate authority to scare people with. Later, heaven and hell were invented as reward and punishment from the gods, to be dispensed by the clergy, who could be bribed (cue the Reformation). Hey! If we don't really know, then anything is possible, right? bill w On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 6:28 AM Samantha Atkins wrote: > Surely to say it happened because of natural selection is not much > different than just saying "it happened". > > I think that both science and religion are outgrowths of a very human > seeking to know, and for meaning and transcendence. I think that > ultimately the best and most authentic of science/technology leads > inescapably to the need for all the best aspects and consideration of the > deepest questions of spirituality. Starting with what does it mean to > wisely choose who we want to be and how we will be to others that choose > differently as we gain the ability to mold physical reality, including our > own very being, as we choose. > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 4:16 PM Keith Henson > wrote: > >> BillK wrote (quoted) >> >> "most people do not believe in an inherent conflict between science >> and religion" >> >> Perhaps this is the case. However, religion is an observed fact among >> one kind of primate. >> >> Science can ask: >> >> Why do people have religions? >> >> The capacity to have religions, like all behaviors, is the result of >> either direct selection or selection for something else that left >> humans with this capacity. >> >> Keith >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Nov 4 05:02:06 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2018 22:02:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: Samantha Atkins wrote: > Having been deeply into spirituality for a time I well know its > strengths.? However I found little there that I can trust more than what > the best science an rationality I am modestly capable of has verified.? > ?I fervently wished it was otherwise.? I really wanted to BELIEVE.?? Samantha. :-) How nice to hear from you. We have had our arguments but I have missed your voice. Ultimately the spiritual truths you derive for yourself are the only ones worth believing in. Epiphany, satori, grace or whatever name you call it does not offer two-for-one specials. All the best gurus are capable of is to make the seeking seem worth the effort. And spirit is real it's just more mundane than people expect. It's made out of bits and I am close to formulating a "physics of spirituality" of sorts. Once I get everything in order, I will share it with the list. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 20:28:22 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 14:28:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If God existed, that is to say a intelligence who created and operates the world, then Teleology, the idea everything has a purpose or goal, should be one of the fundamental aspects of physics; a world with Teleology should exhibit different phenomenon than a world without it and so should be accessible to the scientific method. john clark I don't see how that follows, though certainly it could. The idea that god has a purpose doesn't mean that we have one. I have measured this one myself: could a vine have the purpose of climbing? It looks that way. If you don't give it something to climb it sort of sits there; whereas if you do, then it grows much more rapidly up the support. I am stumped at the idea of how teleology could influence phenomena. How could you measure that? bill w On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 1:54 PM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > >> *there are many reasons why a hypothesis could be unfalsifiable. For >> example, limited resources. I could hypothesize that crashing red-giant >> stars together would make a blue giant star. Since we cannot yet crash >> stars together on purpose, my hypothesis is unfalsifiable which does not >> necessarily make it true or false.* >> > > It's always nice if a theory is falsifiable but I think philosophers like > Karl Popper emphasised it too much, even if we lack the ability to falsify > a idea it's not necessarily useless. There is actually a hypothesis that > you describe above used to explain the existence of rare Blue Straggler > Stars. Globular Clusters contain some of the oldest stars in the universe > and consist almost entirely of small red stars because the clusters are so > old anything larger should have run out of hydrogen fuel and burned out > long ago, but there are a very few giant main sequence Blue Straggler Stars > mixed in among all those old small red stars. Blue Stragglers seem to be > very young but there is almost no gas or dust in Globular Clusters, so how > did they get made? The hypothesis is that 2 old red stars collided only a > few million years ago and merged forming a giant blue star. The star isn't > really young, the collision just gave it a facelift that makes it look > young. > > Another unfalsifiable idea would be the theory of continental drift, > although I suppose both could be said to be unfalsifiable in practice but > not logically unfalsifiable such as the hypothesis an irresistible force > could move a unmovable object, or the theory that the entire universe was > only created 5 minutes ago complete with dinosaur bones in the ground and > memories of me being in the first grade. > >> > > *A third reason a hypothesis could be untestable is that it is >> logically impossible to falsify. For example, solipsism would fall into >> this category* > > > I agree. > > >> > *as would many other religious claims.* >> > > If God existed, that is to say a intelligence who created and operates the > world, then Teleology, the idea everything has a purpose or goal, should be > one of the fundamental aspects of physics; a world with Teleology should > exhibit different phenomenon than a world without it and so should be > accessible to the scientific method. > > * > Now I state that it is self-evident that the intersection of the set >> of unfalsifiable hypotheses and the set of unprovable truths is non-empty. * > > > I agree, and that's why even unfalsifiable hypotheses can be useful. > Unlike pure mathematics science does not demand perfection, it does not > insist that every part of it be proven to be correct, it only wants every > part of it to be shown to be probably approximately correct. > > > >> *I am reminded about an apocryphal story that when Voltaire was on his >> deathbed, a priest urged Voltaire to renounce Satan. To which Votaire >> supposedly replied, "I am sorry, father, but now is not the time to make >> new enemies."* >> > > I hadn't heard that one before, I love 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 21:10:25 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 15:10:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > If God existed, that is to say a intelligence who created and operates the world, then Teleology, the idea everything has a purpose or goal, should be one of the fundamental aspects of physics; a world with Teleology should exhibit different phenomenon than a world without it and so should be accessible to the scientific method. john clark Well, I think that considering God is the ?intelligence that created and operates the world? is not the only kind of ?god? which people have faith in, though it would be the popular conception many people have under the influence of Abrahamic faith. There are other ways to view god/gods. So one could deny this type of creator/organizer God, while still keeping having a different type of conception of ?god?. For example, animism. Or the view that gods are like people in a sense: sentient beings that are born, live, and die in a cycle. Perhaps there is no creator God (certainly I don?t believe in one) but I have faith in what might be called ?lesser gods?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 22:06:27 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 16:06:27 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: memes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did you ever dream of starting something that turned into a meme? Nah, me neither, until my fertile brain (supplied with lots of manure) came up with this: We call a person an asshole, presumably thinking of 'from assholes come shit'. So why not describe the person as having a 2AH problem (or syndrome or ??)- two assholes - shit from both ends. So, what if we start using that with in-group and out-group emails? Could it catch on? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 22:31:08 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:31:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Or, conversely, maybe they noticed that human bodies decayed into an inanimate object--dirt--and also that humans are conscious and experience qualia, and so (perhaps not in a completely unfounded manner, ask any panpsychist) determined that the sum total of all objects (including humans as well as inanimate objects) had some sort of consciousness as well. Modern humans love to pretend ancient humans were stupid--as if humans 1000 years from now (if extant) won't think the same about us. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 6 23:16:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 17:16:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ask any panpsychist) determined that the sum total of all objects (including humans as well as inanimate objects) had some sort of consciousness as well. will It would appear that panpsychists fall very far from the circle of scientists - no harm in that unless you start believing in ideas without data. Or maybe it's the "since humans had the idea, it must have some validity" way of deciding things. Consciousness without communication is worthless. bill w On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:35 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > Or, conversely, maybe they noticed that human bodies decayed into an > inanimate object--dirt--and also that humans are conscious and experience > qualia, and so (perhaps not in a completely unfounded manner, ask any > panpsychist) determined that the sum total of all objects (including humans > as well as inanimate objects) had some sort of consciousness as well. > > Modern humans love to pretend ancient humans were stupid--as if humans > 1000 years from now (if extant) won't think the same about us. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Wed Nov 7 02:51:35 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2018 18:51:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: Samantha Atkins wrote: > Surely to say it happened because of natural selection is not much > different than just saying "it happened". If you think that is the case, then I think you have a seriously impoverished worldview. I could give examples from peacock tails to the changes in teeth as the climate dried out. But it would probably annoy me the least to just wander off. Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 14:36:47 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 09:36:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 4:15 PM SR Ballard wrote: > *Well, I think that considering God is the ?intelligence that created and > operates the world? is not the only kind of ?god? which people have faith > in,* > Yes, they say things like "I believe in a force more powerful than myself" and to tell the truth I believe in that too, gravity and electromagnetism are examples of 2 such forces. But that sort of argument comes from people who have rejected the idea that God is a intelligent conscious BEING, in other words they are perfectly willing to abandon the idea of God but flat out refuse to abandon the English word G-O-D. They redefine the word to mean a sort of generic amorphous grey blob, and its so generic, amorphous and grey that if that's what the word means then even I would have to say "I believe in God". But that's no more informative than saying "I believe in stuff". I don't want to brag but I'm more intelligent than some run of the mill grey blob, so if I'm smarter than God then it's a pretty third rate God. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 15:58:17 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 10:58:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 7, 2018, 09:39 John Clark > ...But that sort of argument comes from people who have rejected the idea > that God is a intelligent conscious BEING... > Just curious, what do you think makes the matter in our brains conscious? And do you think it is not possible that an entity containing multiple consicous brains passing information between each other is not conscious? By that logic, let's consider if your brain was without a particular module, say Broca's area. You're still consicous, but aphasic. Now add in the Broca's area. Would you not say that this is a more expansive consicous entity? Now add a whole other human Brian you're passing information back and forth with. You mean to tell me this dyad is not a more expansive conscious entity than a single brain? Is the brain a magic special thing that is the only unit of consciousness? I thought we got rid of vitalism last century. In my humble opinion, given the evidence that the matter in our brains is conscious, and that is composed of smaller conscious units (cf. corpus callosotomy,) and that the universe is made of the same matter of our brains, and that everything in the universe is physically contiguous in spacetime because of our birth from a singularity, it is quite clear that whatever the universe is has consciousness similar to and more expansive than any of its constituent parts. You may say we are too separate in time from the rest of the universe to be connected in a consicous manner, but how is that different from the nanoseconds it takes to pass information from neuron to neuron? No, I think it is quite rational given overt evidence in the form of scientific studies in matter and spacetime, and in the form of observing our own consciousness, that the universe itself is indeed consicous. Not only do we not know enough about consicousness to say it only resides in brains, but it quite explicitly follows, from these valid points of evidence, that any entity containing smaller conscious entities interacting (including the contiguous nature of all matter and energy, having interacted at the singularity) is itself conscious in some way. Your error is equating 'God' with the childish notion that an anthropomorphic bearded male figure, who thinks like a human, controls the universe and can alter causality. This is a silly, stupid idea and those who try and truly interpret spiritual thought--the mystics, the gnostics--have a far more transhuman, gender neutral idea of 'God', specifically that whatever the universe is, it is a greater consicousness that contains us--albeit one that cannot be contemplated in human terms except for structural considerations like 'God is consicous', 'God contains humanity', &c. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 16:38:00 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 11:38:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:33 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>If God existed, that is to say a intelligence who created and operates >> the world, then Teleology, the idea everything has a purpose or goal, >> should be one of the fundamental aspects of physics; a world with Teleology >> should exhibit different phenomenon than a world without it and so should >> be accessible to the scientific method. john clark > > > *I don't see how that follows, though certainly it could. * > If we assume God is intelligent and His overall plan is not self contradictory then when physicists observe a new phenomena they could form theories about what its purpose is and how some yet unobserved phenomena might be needed to fit into it to make the overall plan work, and then they could test to see if that new unobserved phenomena actually exists. But Physicists at CERN don't do science that way even though that sort of strategy works very well for predicting people's actions; if I see you do something surprising I can form a theory about why you did it and use that theory to predict something you will do in the future, and quite often I will be right. But it works only because you are a intelligent being, for thousands of years people tried to use it to predict things in the natural world, but it didn't work worth a damn. > *> The idea that god has a purpose doesn't mean that we have one.* > We don't need a purpose because we're the ones that are in the purpose conferring business. An amorphous blob can't give you a purpose, but you may be able to find a use for it and give it a purpose. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 18:00:57 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:00:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:03 AM Will Steinberg wrote: On Wed, Nov 7, 2018, 09:39 John Clark > >>...But that sort of argument comes from people who have rejected the >> idea that God is a intelligent conscious BEING... >> > > Just curious, what do you think makes the matter in our brains conscious? > I think there is not a infinite sequence of "why" questions and after a finite number of them the sequence terminates in a brute fact. I think it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feel when it is being processed. > By that logic, let's consider if your brain was without a particular > module, say Broca's area. You're still consicous, but aphasic. > I have no idea if that's true or not because I still have my Broca's area. Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but unless I cut off my toe I'll never know. > > Now add in the Broca's area. Would you not say that this is a more > expansive consicous entity? > > Now add a whole other human Brian you're passing information back and > forth with. You mean to tell me this dyad is not a more expansive > conscious entity than a single brain? Is the brain a magic special thing > that is the only unit of consciousness? > > I thought we got rid of vitalism last century. > > > > In my humble opinion, given the evidence that the matter in our brains > is conscious, > What's with this "our" business? > and that is composed of smaller conscious units (cf. corpus callosotomy,) > and that the universe is made of the same matter of our brains, and that > everything in the universe is physically contiguous in spacetime because of > our birth from a singularity, it is quite clear that whatever the universe > is has consciousness similar to and more expansive than any of its > constituent parts. You may say we are too separate in time from the rest > of the universe to be connected in a consicous manner, but how is that > different from the nanoseconds it takes to pass information from neuron to > neuron? > > No, I think it is quite rational given overt evidence in the form of > scientific studies in matter and spacetime, and in the form of observing > our own consciousness, that the universe itself is indeed consicous. > Not only do we not know enough about consicousness to say it only resides > in brains, > I have no way of knowing about your brain I can only know about my own and I know that when my brain changes my consciousness changes and when my consciousness changes my brain changes. And I know I am literally not the man I once was, the atoms that are in my brain today came from last years mashed potatoes. I know that Evolution produced me and I know Evolution can see intelligent behavior but it can't see consciousness any better than we can directly see consciousness in others, and yet Evolution produced me and I know from direct experience that I am conscious. My theory to explain this is that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence, and that is the only reason I have for believing that my fellow human beings are conscious when they take a calculus exam but are not conscious when they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. > *> Your error is equating 'God' with the childish notion that an > anthropomorphic bearded male figure,* > It's not a error to ask for a definition. I don't think being male or having a beard is a vital characteristic that defines the word "God", but being intelligent and conscious seems like a minimum requirement to me. > > *who thinks like a human,* > I don't demand God think like a human but I do demand God be able to think, and if He can't think better than me I'm not going to worship Him, He should be worshiping me. > *controls the universe and can alter causality. * > If God can't do that than He is more like a comic book superhero, or supervillain, or a Greek god, or a Jupiter Brain. And it came to pass the supercomputer was asked the question everybody wanted answered "Is there a God?" and after a few seconds the supercomputer replied in a deep sonorous voice "THERE IS NOW!" John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 18:20:39 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:20:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: memes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 5:11 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > We call a person an asshole, presumably thinking of 'from assholes come > shit'. So why not describe the person as having a 2AH problem (or syndrome > or ??)- two assholes - shit from both ends. So, what if we start using > that with in-group and out-group emails? Could it catch on? > How about a spherical asshole? An asshole that still looks like an asshole regardless of how or which way you look at him. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 19:20:03 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 13:20:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Where little is known about something, there you will find the most theories about it, not excepting the most bizarre ones anyone can think of. bill w On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 10:02 AM Will Steinberg wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018, 09:39 John Clark >> >> ...But that sort of argument comes from people who have rejected the idea >> that God is a intelligent conscious BEING... >> > > Just curious, what do you think makes the matter in our brains conscious? > And do you think it is not possible that an entity containing multiple > consicous brains passing information between each other is not conscious? > > By that logic, let's consider if your brain was without a particular > module, say Broca's area. You're still consicous, but aphasic. > > Now add in the Broca's area. Would you not say that this is a more > expansive consicous entity? > > Now add a whole other human Brian you're passing information back and > forth with. You mean to tell me this dyad is not a more expansive > conscious entity than a single brain? Is the brain a magic special thing > that is the only unit of consciousness? > > I thought we got rid of vitalism last century. > > In my humble opinion, given the evidence that the matter in our brains is > conscious, and that is composed of smaller conscious units (cf. corpus > callosotomy,) and that the universe is made of the same matter of our > brains, and that everything in the universe is physically contiguous in > spacetime because of our birth from a singularity, it is quite clear that > whatever the universe is has consciousness similar to and more expansive > than any of its constituent parts. You may say we are too separate in time > from the rest of the universe to be connected in a consicous manner, but > how is that different from the nanoseconds it takes to pass information > from neuron to neuron? > > No, I think it is quite rational given overt evidence in the form of > scientific studies in matter and spacetime, and in the form of observing > our own consciousness, that the universe itself is indeed consicous. Not > only do we not know enough about consicousness to say it only resides in > brains, but it quite explicitly follows, from these valid points of > evidence, that any entity containing smaller conscious entities interacting > (including the contiguous nature of all matter and energy, having > interacted at the singularity) is itself conscious in some way. > > Your error is equating 'God' with the childish notion that an > anthropomorphic bearded male figure, who thinks like a human, controls the > universe and can alter causality. This is a silly, stupid idea and those > who try and truly interpret spiritual thought--the mystics, the > gnostics--have a far more transhuman, gender neutral idea of 'God', > specifically that whatever the universe is, it is a greater consicousness > that contains us--albeit one that cannot be contemplated in human terms > except for structural considerations like 'God is consicous', 'God contains > humanity', &c. > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 20:57:19 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 15:57:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > Typo; should be: ...think it is not possible that an entity containing multiple consicous > brains passing information between each other is conscious? > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Nov 7 22:46:16 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:46:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank Message-ID: This is just FYI. https://qz.com/1443787/a-libertarian-think-tank-just-gave-up-on-libertarianism/ Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 01:09:11 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 20:09:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic Message-ID: In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than the republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans and probably 3 or 4. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 07:20:12 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 01:20:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Yes, they say things like "I believe in a force more powerful than myself" and to tell the truth I believe in that too, gravity and electromagnetism are examples of 2 such forces. But that sort of argument comes from people who have rejected the idea that God is a intelligent conscious BEING, in other words they are perfectly willing to abandon the idea of God but flat out refuse to abandon the English word G-O-D. They redefine the word to mean a sort of generic amorphous grey blob, and its so generic, amorphous and grey that if that's what the word means then even I would have to say "I believe in God". But that's no more informative than saying "I believe in stuff". I don't want to brag but I'm more intelligent than some run of the mill grey blob, so if I'm smarter than God then it's a pretty third rate God. > > John K Clark I don?t mean to nitpick, but I actually feel like you didn?t understand what I was trying to explain. I?m trying to say that there is something ?less? than the Abrahamic idea of God (the all-knowing, all-mighty creator/judge) and this very vague metaphysical higher power. There are other views of gods besides these two views. For example, they can be viewed more in line with how fae were/are viewed, as able to affect our world but generally disinterested. A ?worship as power? view, where when gods are not worshiped they slowly die. And when they receive sacrifices they become powerful. As extensions of a ?spirit of the place?, having a somewhat limited knowledge and power over a specific geographical area. A covenant Lord, having power mostly within his own people. A god would not have to fit the Abrahamic view in order to be a god, but at the same would not have to be watered down into a nothingness like you suggest. You can envision a being, with a still-limited intelligence and power, however being still smarter and more powerful than yourself, can?t you? I?m sure you could find a human who would fit that criteria actually. Now I?m not saying God or gods are real, because I can?t think of any way to prove/disprove their existence. But what I am saying is that there are more than just these two extremes you are using. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 16:26:21 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 17:26:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is a good article. "?I have abandoned that libertarian project?because I have come to abandon ideology,? writes Taylor, who invites readers to flee the ?clean and well-lit prison of one idea.? The future of American politics, he argues, is principled compromise, even if the present couldn?t seem further away." On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 5:14 PM Keith Henson wrote: > > This is just FYI. > > https://qz.com/1443787/a-libertarian-think-tank-just-gave-up-on-libertarianism/ > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From dsunley at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 16:29:10 2018 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 09:29:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You know, if you just read fivethirtyeight.com, these things will stop coming as traumatic surprises. Absolutely nothing happened Tuesday night that wasn't right smack dab in the middle of the probability distribution they've been describing for months. On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 9:23 AM John Clark wrote: > In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than the > republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans and > probably 3 or 4. > > 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 Thu Nov 8 16:41:57 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 08:41:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> On Nov 7, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > This is just FYI. > > https://qz.com/1443787/a-libertarian-think-tank-just-gave-up-on-libertarianism/ I thought someone refuted his (Jerry Taylor?s) overall expectations and approach years ago: https://c4ss.org/content/40819 Anyhow, the folks at the Niskanen Center have always been about strategic compromise. So not as big a surprise here that they might drop the label. All of this said, I too am saddened by libertarians who either aren?t critical of Trump or actually support him ? especially in areas like immigration and trade. But in my view those folks have simply abandoned libertarianism or watered it down so much that it amounts to the same thing. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 8 16:44:53 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 08:44:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004101d47782$6018aa30$2049fe90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic >?In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than the republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans and probably 3 or 4. John K Clark The voting machines were hacked John. If we just get rid of those things, all will be well. Are you in? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 17:40:43 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:40:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:06 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > You know, if you just read fivethirtyeight.com, these things will stop > coming as traumatic surprises. Absolutely nothing happened Tuesday night > that wasn't right smack dab in the middle of the probability distribution > they've been describing for months. > Yes, 538 did pretty well in 2018. But in 2016 although they did a lot better than most they still got it wrong. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 17:47:46 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:47:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: <004101d47782$6018aa30$2049fe90$@rainier66.com> References: <004101d47782$6018aa30$2049fe90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM wrote: > >?In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than >> the republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans >> and probably 3 or 4. John K Clark > > > *>The voting machines were hacked John. If we just get rid of those > things, all will be well.* > If we just get rid of our screwy way of electing senators and the Electoral College all will be well. But I don't expect that to happen. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 17:56:13 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:56:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:37 AM SR Ballard wrote: *> I don?t mean to nitpick, but I actually feel like you didn?t understand > what I was trying to explain. I?m trying to say that there is something > ?less? than the Abrahamic idea of God (the all-knowing, all-mighty > creator/judge) * > But the Abrahamic concept of a all-knowing all-mighty creator/judge is very very common in our culture and so we need a word for it, and we have one, "God". The concept of something less than that is also common and there is a word for that too, two of them actually, superhero and supervillain. *> A god would not have to fit the Abrahamic view in order to be a god,* > I think it does, or at least it should. If somebody insists on using the word "God" when they mean something far less than God they must realize they are almost certainly going to be misunderstood, and the only reason I can think of they would do that is although they have abandoned the idea of God they just can't abandon the 3 character ASCII sequence G-O-D. *> You can envision a being, with a still-limited intelligence and power, > however being still smarter and more powerful than yourself, can?t you?* > Yes, I can envision Lex Luthor. > > *I?m sure you could find a human who would fit that criteria actually.* > I have no doubt, but I wouldn't call that human God, there are plenty of other words in the English language I could use that would not cause misunderstanding the instant I made a comment about this very smart human. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 18:00:49 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 13:00:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:19 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: *> I too am saddened by libertarians who either aren?t critical of Trump or > actually support him ? especially in areas like immigration and trade. But > in my view those folks have simply abandoned libertarianism or watered it > down so much that it amounts to the same thing.* I am *very* glad to hear you say that, I thought I was the only one. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 8 20:47:21 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 12:47:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: <004101d47782$6018aa30$2049fe90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005c01d477a4$3fd0d6e0$bf7284a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Interesting statistic On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM > wrote: >>>?In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than the republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans and probably 3 or 4. John K Clark >>The voting machines were hacked John. If we just get rid of those things, all will be well. >?If we just get rid of our screwy way of electing senators and the Electoral College all will be well. But I don't expect that to happen. John K Clark Ja that would require ? of the states to ratify an amendment which would give away political power for at least half of the states. John I will explain to you what really happened, for even I don?t think this outcome was a result of voting machine hacking, and you know me: I blame every evil on voting machine hacking. What really happened this time is California Effect. In California, we had an incumbent far left senator up for re-election, a ranking member of the party, chair of important stuff and so on, but she is getting old. If she survives to the end of her term she will be in her 90s, which is getting well on towards geezerhood, even by today?s standards. In California, the left-leaning mainstream party has become so dominant, the right-leaning party is now just dialing it in, which means they aren?t spending their money on statewide races (and will not again until the state gets into some real budget problems.) This happens in states with one dominant party, as demonstrated by Alvin Greene, who won a senate primary in South Carolina a few years ago without spending any money, with no campaign events, no advertisement, nothing. When one party gets way dominant, the inevitable result is that without serious opposition uniting it in common cause, it turns on itself and undergoes fission. The California dominant party is now in the process of splitting between the far left candidate and the farther left candidate. In California, the top two winners of the primaries go against each other. Both candidates were the same party this time (and likely will be for the foreseeable.) Some of the fiercest debates in anything are between those of similar positions. This senate race was the most contentious one I have ever seen in California, with both candidates in the same party. I was deluged with campaign literature, calls, foot soldiers handing out literature, oy vey. I had some fun with them however. Whenever a campaigner called me, I would pretend to be a hardcore communist, play with them a bit, get them to try to convince me their far left or farther left candidate was far enough left for my taste. It was fun. I am such a bastard that way. {8^D OK, we are part way there. Stay with me please. California is the most populous state, and by faaaarrr the richest, individually as well as collectively. People with buttloads of cash on their hands often turn to politics for a place for their money to go out and play, since they seldom need to worry much over other matters which are more pressing needs so many in other states. Consequence: toooons of money go into California political races, piles of money. OK: one dominant party in California. If one is not that party, there is no reason to use one?s resources on their internal struggles. I have no particular preference of far left vs farther left. I couldn?t tell the difference between two. Plenty of people in California are like-minded: we watched in detached amusement as the far left and farther left pounded the stuffings out of each other with rhetoric and money. Shrugs. Meanwhile? That idle money owned by those who have no particular preference is now freeeee free free, to go to senate races in other states where money is not nearly as plentiful, such as Florida, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota and Arizona. The idle money from just the non-dominant mainstream party in California alone can easily overpower both mainstream parties combined in all five of those purple states combined, easily, with change left over. So? Californians who can?t tell the difference between far left and farther left, or who don?t care who wins between far left and farther left realize that it is only senate seat, and a senate seat in any another state is equal to this one, which already belongs to another party anyway regardless, so? all that idle money goes to support their favored candidate in other states. Result: we saw it. But that?s only part of the story. In California, the non-dominant party need not have campaign workers go around neighborhoods: no point in it, and they cannot have rallies because it has become too dangerous. Note what happened when the non-dominant party attempted a rally in San Jose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/03/ugly-bloody-scenes-in-san-jose-as-protesters-attack-trump-supporters-outside-rally/?utm_term=.5cde411672c0 OK, so there is no reason for those parties to spent money in California, no reason to have rallies in California, which frees up more money and volunteer time. If one works phone banks, it costs exactly the same whether one is calling one?s neighbors in California or is calling any other state, such as Florida, Iowa, North Dakota, Missouri or Arizona (the data all goes to the same satellite.) Meanwhile, the dominant party?s money and volunteer time in California are not freed up, because so much of the dominant party?s money and time is spent pounding the other faction of its own party, campaigning for its own seat with a fervor never seen when the other party was in futile contention for that seat. Not only is their money and time not freed up, they need more of it than before (and get way more of it than before (because the rhetoric is hotter (because the positions are more similar (and the stakes are lower.)))) So? the far left California senator beat the farther left California candidate, while the other mainstream party flipped four seats in the senate elsewhere. I doubt it had anything to do with voting machine hacking, everything to do with the California mainstream party undergoing fission. But don?t worry, the farther left California party will be back, stronger next time. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 06:28:25 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 22:28:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods Message-ID: I originated a few memes. One I can't track. It's the one that has been on Mythbusters several times, the car with a jato bottle. I worked this out at the dining room table at the Druid Studen Center in the early 1960s and spread it around to a few dozen people as kind of a joke. The reason I think I might have originated it is that the stories all tend to be set in Arizona. But I really can't tell. Another which I can track is the Druid registration meme that I originated in 1961 during registration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson#Druid_prank There are a few ideas I had that I didn't spread out as memes because I thought they were not good. Won't mention them here. The "world as a simulation" meme I didn't originate, but I was a link (as was Hans Moravec) in it becoming a cottage industry in philosophy departments. The story was discussed on this list in the early 2000s. Oh, how the character of this list has changed. In the early days, it was more about us becoming gods or at least entities with what was considered godlike powers through nanotech. I think it could be summed up as "There are no gods--yet." Keith From avant at sollegro.com Fri Nov 9 17:14:35 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:14:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: <17eb08582184c9335aa9fd5a97cb3231.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: > If God existed, that is to say a intelligence who created and operates > the world, then Teleology, the idea everything has a purpose or goal, > should be one of the fundamental aspects of physics; If we do happen to live in a simulation, then would you consider the simulator to be a god or a superhero? The operator of the simulation need not have been the creator of the simulation. The operator could simply be an end-user rather than the developer. Furthermore such a person need not have any purpose or goal for the universe beyond their own entertainment. To quote Constantine from the Keanu Reeves movie of that name, "God is a kid with an ant farm, lady. He's not planning anything." > a world with > Teleology should > exhibit different phenomenon than a world without it and so should be > accessible to the scientific method. Teleological language is deliberately avoided or obscured in science. This was not always the case. Newton framed a lot of his ideas in terms of teleological deism. Suggesting that God was like a clock-maker who made the universe like a clock and then stepped back and watched it work. And in the field of biology, teleological language is nearly impossible to avoid. Even arch-atheist Dawkins had to resort to labeling genes as "selfish" and organisms as "survival machines" which implies purpose and goal-driven behavior. One could just as easily say that the thermodynamic purpose of nature is to maximize entropy, systems seek the lowest energy state, or that the universe has the goal of expanding. But mainstream science purposely avoids such language specifically to side step any theological implications. So the seeming lack of teleology to the universe could simply boil down to conventional linguistics and semantics. Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 9 18:04:41 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:04:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] chinese ai news guy Message-ID: <000801d47856$b0f34300$12d9c900$@rainier66.com> This is getting there. I woulda preferred a female AI, but I'm that way: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2018/nov/09/worlds-first-ai-pre senter-unveiled-in-china-video spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 20:22:35 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 12:22:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> On Nov 8, 2018, at 10:00 AM, John Clark wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:19 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> > I too am saddened by libertarians who either aren?t critical of Trump or actually support him ? especially in areas like immigration and trade. But in my view those folks have simply abandoned libertarianism or watered it down so much that it amounts to the same thing. > > I am very glad to hear you say that, I thought I was the only one. Then you haven?t been paying attention. Not only have I always been against Trump (and Clinton and anyone else running for President*), I?m by no means alone. There are many vocal libertarian anti-Trump folks out there. Of course, the big problem is many anti-libertarians call themselves libertarians, so those of us against Trump are overlooked by basically statists in libertarian drag. A good litmus test these days is asking any self-identified libertarian if they?re for open borders. If they?re not, then they?re not a libertarian. (Like with the War on Terror, Trump?s rise to power has shown me who the fake libertarians are.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst * I?ve openly call for abolishing the office. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 21:02:14 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:02:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] chinese ai news guy In-Reply-To: <000801d47856$b0f34300$12d9c900$@rainier66.com> References: <000801d47856$b0f34300$12d9c900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Do you think maybe in China they are more sexist than we are? Perhaps they think that a man will be more trusted. Here, we don't care about that at all: we care about ratings. bill On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:56 PM wrote: > > > > > This is getting there. I woulda preferred a female AI, but I?m that way: > > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/technology/video/2018/nov/09/worlds-first-ai-presenter-unveiled-in-china-video > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 21:06:05 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:06:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ballard wrote: As extensions of a ?spirit of the place?, having a somewhat limited knowledge and power over a specific geographical area. Terry Pratchett played around with this idea lot in his books in a comedic way, of course. bill w On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:35 AM SR Ballard wrote: > > Yes, they say things like "I believe in a force more powerful than myself" > and to tell the truth I believe in that too, gravity and electromagnetism > are examples of 2 such forces. But that sort of argument comes from people > who have rejected the idea that God is a intelligent conscious BEING, in > other words they are perfectly willing to abandon the idea of God but flat > out refuse to abandon the English word G-O-D. They redefine the word to > mean a sort of generic amorphous grey blob, and its so generic, amorphous > and grey that if that's what the word means then even I would have to say > "I believe in God". But that's no more informative than saying "I believe > in stuff". I don't want to brag but I'm more intelligent than some run of > the mill grey blob, so if I'm smarter than God then it's a pretty third > rate God. > > John K Clark > > > I don?t mean to nitpick, but I actually feel like you didn?t understand > what I was trying to explain. I?m trying to say that there is something > ?less? than the Abrahamic idea of God (the all-knowing, all-mighty > creator/judge) and this very vague metaphysical higher power. > > There are other views of gods besides these two views. > > For example, they can be viewed more in line with how fae were/are viewed, > as able to affect our world but generally disinterested. > > A ?worship as power? view, where when gods are not worshiped they slowly > die. And when they receive sacrifices they become powerful. > > As extensions of a ?spirit of the place?, having a somewhat limited > knowledge and power over a specific geographical area. > > A covenant Lord, having power mostly within his own people. > > A god would not have to fit the Abrahamic view in order to be a god, but > at the same would not have to be watered down into a nothingness like you > suggest. > > You can envision a being, with a still-limited intelligence and power, > however being still smarter and more powerful than yourself, can?t you? I?m > sure you could find a human who would fit that criteria actually. > > Now I?m not saying God or gods are real, because I can?t think of any way > to prove/disprove their existence. But what I am saying is that there are > more than just these two extremes you are using. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Nov 9 21:11:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:11:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM John Clark wrote: > In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than the > republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans and > probably 3 or 4. > > John K Clark > What is frustrating to me is that polls show that people are more likely to favor the Democrat's ideas, but vote Republican. Given the brains and knowledge of the average voter, this is not surprising, but it is frustrating. bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 21:13:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:13:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am *very* glad to hear you say that, I thought I was the only one. John K Clark Perhaps you did not notice a while back my saying that my liberal views seemed to trump (sorry) my libertarian views to the point that maybe I am not one anymore. I do believe in a very basic minimum of laws, which is never going to happen with so many lawyers in office. bill On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:11 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 12:19 PM Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > > *> I too am saddened by libertarians who either aren?t critical of Trump >> or actually support him ? especially in areas like immigration and trade. >> But in my view those folks have simply abandoned libertarianism or watered >> it down so much that it amounts to the same thing.* > > > I am *very* glad to hear you say that, I thought I was the only one. > > 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 Fri Nov 9 21:17:36 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 15:17:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In the early days, it was more about us becoming gods or at least entities with what was considered godlike powers through nanotech. I think it could be summed up as "There are no gods--yet." Keith As a personality psychologist, I have an interest in testing. I like the Myers- Briggs, for instance, on which I score as an INTJ. The shorthand for that category is Mastermind. I wonder if any of you have taken that test and know your scores and will share them with me. I can forward you an online test that won't take five minutes (yes, I took it and scored INTJ). Many of you come across as being in that category. bill w On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 2:33 PM Keith Henson wrote: > I originated a few memes. > > One I can't track. It's the one that has been on Mythbusters several > times, the car with a jato bottle. I worked this out at the dining > room table at the Druid Studen Center in the early 1960s and spread it > around to a few dozen people as kind of a joke. The reason I think I > might have originated it is that the stories all tend to be set in > Arizona. But I really can't tell. > > Another which I can track is the Druid registration meme that I > originated in 1961 during registration. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson#Druid_prank > > There are a few ideas I had that I didn't spread out as memes because > I thought they were not good. Won't mention them here. > > The "world as a simulation" meme I didn't originate, but I was a link > (as was Hans Moravec) in it becoming a cottage industry in philosophy > departments. The story was discussed on this list in the early 2000s. > > Oh, how the character of this list has changed. In the early days, it > was more about us becoming gods or at least entities with what was > considered godlike powers through nanotech. I think it could be > summed up as "There are no gods--yet." > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 9 21:53:54 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 13:53:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bb01d47876$b5906440$20b12cc0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Thursday, November 8, 2018 10:28 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods I originated a few memes. One I can't track. It's the one that has been on Mythbusters several times, the car with a jato bottle. ... Keith Here ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHUsGFGhfmk I am surprised Mythbusters didn't get some competent technical advisors when they propose doing stuff like this. Their shop is close by, so I volunteered to come up there and look over their ideas. On their JATO car, I would have pointed out pretty much exactly why that would do what it did: they didn't align their center of mass of the car with the center of thrust of the rockets. I could easily tell just by looking at it that the CM was way lower than those five JATO bottles. It was off by enough that a tight nose-down spiral was easily foreseen. In this case, it would be very easy to estimate where that CG is located. In cars, particularly 60s muscle cars, it is surprisingly low. Oh I miss that show. Oh I miss Kari Byron. Was she the cutest thing on two feet or what? spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 21:53:24 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:53:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: <005c01d477a4$3fd0d6e0$bf7284a0$@rainier66.com> References: <004101d47782$6018aa30$2049fe90$@rainier66.com> <005c01d477a4$3fd0d6e0$bf7284a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 20:23, spike wrote: > > Ja that would require ? of the states to ratify an amendment which would give away political power for at least half of the states. > The problem with just relying on total votes cast in national elections is the same problem that the UK has with referendums like Brexit. By total vote count the UK is almost equally split between EU IN or EU OUT. But not equally split by area. e.g. London and Scotland voted EU IN and most of the rest of the UK voted EU OUT. This is similar to the USA where the large East and West coast cities voted blue and the much larger (by area) central states voted red, producing roughly equal total number of votes. So if it is just the total number of votes that is used the result is that one area of the country gets the right to decide how the other area should be governed. It could lead to breakup of the UK or secessions in the USA. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 9 22:04:20 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 14:04:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00de01d47878$2b1a4ea0$814eebe0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Interesting statistic On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM John Clark > wrote: In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than the republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans and probably 3 or 4. John K Clark >?What is frustrating to me is that polls show that people are more likely to favor the Democrat's ideas, but vote Republican. Given the brains and knowledge of the average voter, this is not surprising, but it is frustrating. >?bill w BillW, one can like the ideas but simultaneously recognize that the Federal government isn?t paying for all the ideas it has already had. It is borrowing money to carry out its current ideas. New ideas are of little value unless they are ideas about how to balance the budget. The ideas I have heard from both mainstream parties have nothing to do with balancing the budget. Have you any ideas on balancing the budget? Do share please. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 23:52:53 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 17:52:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: <00de01d47878$2b1a4ea0$814eebe0$@rainier66.com> References: <00de01d47878$2b1a4ea0$814eebe0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Have you any ideas on balancing the budget? Do share please. spike Yes - forget about it. Won't happen. The only consolation I see is that point that John Clark made about when you borrow money you pay back dollars that are worth less than the money you have when you borrow it. One idea: means-based Social Security. I love getting it but I don't need it and regardless of having paid in to it I would do without it to help the budget. I would just regard the tax as going to help other people and not something I'd get back someday. Not likely a popular idea. Welfare is means-based or supposed to be. Another - negotiate drug costs (which you will have to get by the Repubs and good luck with that; think about it - government employees who refuse to lower the cost of government. I thought the Repubs were ecstatic about lowering government costs. But no, not when it impacts their donors - just how many lobbyists do the drug companies have?) bill w On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:46 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Interesting statistic > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:24 AM John Clark wrote: > > In the senatorial election democrats got 11.8 million more votes than the > republicans but the democrats lost at least 2 seats to the republicans and > probably 3 or 4. > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > >?What is frustrating to me is that polls show that people are more > likely to favor the Democrat's ideas, but vote Republican. Given the > brains and knowledge of the average voter, this is not surprising, but it > is frustrating. > > > > >?bill w > > > > > > BillW, one can like the ideas but simultaneously recognize that the > Federal government isn?t paying for all the ideas it has already had. It > is borrowing money to carry out its current ideas. New ideas are of little > value unless they are ideas about how to balance the budget. The ideas I > have heard from both mainstream parties have nothing to do with balancing > the budget. > > > > Have you any ideas on balancing the budget? Do share please. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 00:04:11 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 19:04:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:27 AM John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 11:03 AM Will Steinberg > wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018, 09:39 John Clark > > > >> >>...But that sort of argument comes from people who have rejected the >>> idea that God is a intelligent conscious BEING... >>> >> >> Just curious, what do you think makes the matter in our brains conscious? >> > > I think there is not a infinite sequence of "why" questions and after a > finite number of them the sequence terminates in a brute fact. I think it's > a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feel when it is being > processed. > Yes, we are in agreement with one another. I am not sure how you define "data" though. > By that logic, let's consider if your brain was without a particular >> module, say Broca's area. You're still consicous, but aphasic. >> > > I have no idea if that's true or not because I still have my Broca's area. > Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but unless I > cut off my toe I'll never know. > Well it's not my fault you're not willing to cut your toe off to test it, then. > Now add in the Broca's area. Would you not say that this is a more >> expansive consicous entity? >> >> Now add a whole other human Brian you're passing information back and >> forth with. You mean to tell me this dyad is not a more expansive >> conscious entity than a single brain? Is the brain a magic special thing >> that is the only unit of consciousness? >> >> I thought we got rid of vitalism last century. >> >> > >> > In my humble opinion, given the evidence that the matter in our brains >> is conscious, >> > > What's with this "our" business? > You can't be a solipsist, sorry; don't worry, if you were the only thing that existed I would tell you. > and that is composed of smaller conscious units (cf. corpus callosotomy,) >> and that the universe is made of the same matter of our brains, and that >> everything in the universe is physically contiguous in spacetime because of >> our birth from a singularity, it is quite clear that whatever the universe >> is has consciousness similar to and more expansive than any of its >> constituent parts. You may say we are too separate in time from the rest >> of the universe to be connected in a consicous manner, but how is that >> different from the nanoseconds it takes to pass information from neuron to >> neuron? >> >> No, I think it is quite rational given overt evidence in the form of >> scientific studies in matter and spacetime, and in the form of observing >> our own consciousness, that the universe itself is indeed consicous. >> > > > Not only do we not know enough about consicousness to say it only resides >> in brains, >> > > I have no way of knowing about your brain I can only know about my own and > I know that when my brain changes my consciousness changes and when my > consciousness changes my brain changes. And I know I am literally not the > man I once was, the atoms that are in my brain today came from last years > mashed potatoes. I know that Evolution produced me and I know Evolution can > see intelligent behavior but it can't see consciousness any better than we > can directly see consciousness in others, and yet Evolution produced me and > I know from direct experience that I am conscious. My theory to explain > this is that consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence, and that is the > only reason I have for believing that my fellow human beings are conscious > when they take a calculus exam but are not conscious when they are sleeping > or under anesthesia or dead. > What makes you believe that? > *> Your error is equating 'God' with the childish notion that an >> anthropomorphic bearded male figure,* >> > > It's not a error to ask for a definition. I don't think being male or > having a beard is a vital characteristic that defines the word "God", but > being intelligent and conscious seems like a minimum requirement to me. > How is the universe different than the "data" you talk about being processed? What are the guidelines for whether something is considered "data"? > *who thinks like a human,* >> > > I don't demand God think like a human but I do demand God be able to > think, and if He can't think better than me I'm not going to worship Him, > He should be worshiping me. > You ARE it. As am I. Just not all of it. I think that the sum total of all humans certainly thinks better than you, for starters. Unless you mean to tell me you can personally beat the combined acheivements of Newton, Einstein, et al.? All of whom received their data from previous humans and human cultural objects. I don't understand why you would think that the consciousness of one human you are looking at, with two observed hemispheres in the brain that are separately functional in terms of information processing but also integrated, is any different in flavor from the consciousness of, two humans--say, a couple or business duo, but also anyone--with two observed whole brains that are separately functional in terms of information processing but also integrated. Except for that the latter is bigger and more powerful. > *controls the universe and can alter causality. * >> > > If God can't do that than He is more like a comic book superhero, or > supervillain, or a Greek god, or a Jupiter Brain. > And it came to pass the supercomputer was asked the question everybody wanted > answered "Is there a God?" and after a few seconds the supercomputer > replied in a deep sonorous voice "THERE IS NOW!" > My conception of 'God' is indeed like a Jupiter Brain, except on the time scales that separate entire civilizations (which were originally physically contiguous) and not the time scales of intelligent-being-made computations. I just happen to take the events leading up to the formation of the Jupiter Brain as part of the consciousness, in a way. I don't think it makes sense to have a cutoff for what you consider "data". Are genes data? What about crystalline structures, which are self-replicating? Or molecular forms in general, are they data? Are the orbitals of an atom data? What about a book that multiple people have contributed to, or the schematic to build a nuclear reactor? What about an email listhost? > John K Clark > William B Steinberg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 10 01:06:58 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 17:06:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: <00de01d47878$2b1a4ea0$814eebe0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003601d47891$ae935830$0bba0890$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >>?Have you any ideas on balancing the budget? Do share please. spike >?Yes - forget about it. Won't happen? OK, what if it doesn?t? What happens when China stops lending? >?The only consolation I see is that point that John Clark made about when you borrow money you pay back dollars that are worth less than the money you have when you borrow it? True sorta. If a country starts inflating its currency, lending stops. It is no longer profitable to loan money to that country. So now we have a pile of new problems on top of trying to pay back loans with growing unemployment. We are setting ourselves up for catastrophe. >?One idea: means-based Social Security? This transition is a soft default. As soon as it happens, voters persistently reduce all Social Security payments. There?s a really good reason why this hasn?t already happened. >? Not likely a popular idea? Roger that. >? Another - negotiate drug costs? bill w Might help, but will likely be mostly irrelevant if the government isn?t buying much of it anymore. However, our problems will likely be mountainous compared to the small pile of money to be saved with lower cost drugs. I keep getting the feeling it will be way worse than we anticipated as soon as America starts to sober up. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 02:12:34 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 20:12:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: <003601d47891$ae935830$0bba0890$@rainier66.com> References: <00de01d47878$2b1a4ea0$814eebe0$@rainier66.com> <003601d47891$ae935830$0bba0890$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I remember a phrase 'the gnomes of Zurich', referring to the finance people there. I niece I once had married a Lebanese guy who worked in a finance house in New York City. A room full of people. He said that he was the only nonJew. I have no idea what the statistics are, but I suspect that Jews mostly run Wall Street and therefore the country. We'll have to hope that they know what they are doing, not that the derivatives crash showed a whole lot of intelligence. They were not elected, which may be highly in their favor. They produce or they are out. Survival. Maybe we will show the world what happens when greed runs everything. The most spectacular crash of a state in history. Huns and Rome will be nothing compared to it. But, after all, it's just money. The people will still be here, and will build again, possibly even learning a lesson or two. We have the genes to succeed. That's just an obvious fact. I have read that many very rich people have made and lost several fortunes, but always came back and did it again. And then the crash comes again. Look at Sears. Did not evolve. Did not innovate. Amazon will not be forever (it still hasn't made money, I think - and how do we explain that?). I am not a pessimist except when it comes to sex. We will fuck ourselves out of a great and beautiful planet if we don't stop trashing it with more and more people, who we now know will mostly be free riders and cheaters, contributing nothing but hungry mouths looking to be on the dole. I am not saying that a big crash won't hurt quite a bit. I am saying that it will not kill us. It may kill our system of government, and some might say that's long overdue. It will have been a good run - nothing lasts forever. Then on the other hand, the world might decide that we are too big to fail - we would take too many down with us. bill w On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:11 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > >>?Have you any ideas on balancing the budget? Do share please. > > spike > > > > >?Yes - forget about it. Won't happen? > > OK, what if it doesn?t? What happens when China stops lending? > > > > >?The only consolation I see is that point that John Clark made about > when you borrow money you pay back dollars that are worth less than the > money you have when you borrow it? > > True sorta. If a country starts inflating its currency, lending stops. > It is no longer profitable to loan money to that country. So now we have a > pile of new problems on top of trying to pay back loans with growing > unemployment. We are setting ourselves up for catastrophe. > > > > >?One idea: means-based Social Security? > > This transition is a soft default. As soon as it happens, voters > persistently reduce all Social Security payments. There?s a really good > reason why this hasn?t already happened. > > > > >? Not likely a popular idea? > > Roger that. > > >? Another - negotiate drug costs? bill w > > Might help, but will likely be mostly irrelevant if the government isn?t > buying much of it anymore. > > However, our problems will likely be mountainous compared to the small > pile of money to be saved with lower cost drugs. > > I keep getting the feeling it will be way worse than we anticipated as > soon as America starts to sober up. > > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 03:30:54 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:30:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: <00de01d47878$2b1a4ea0$814eebe0$@rainier66.com> <003601d47891$ae935830$0bba0890$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <8EFA6C37-C42D-4682-B022-7BEF445A5D2C@gmail.com> > I have no idea what the statistics are, but I suspect that Jews mostly run Wall Street and therefore the country. We'll have to hope that they know what they are doing, not that the derivatives crash showed a whole lot of intelligence. They were not elected, which may be highly in their favor. They produce or they are out. Survival. > > bill w If Jews mostly run Wall Street the explanation is simple: Strong in-group networking, high culture pressure to ?achieve?, and strong mating pressure to ?achieve?. Or that?s my observation based on the Jewish culture I grew up in. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 03:33:43 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:33:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you can?t call them a god, what do you call Pan? Horned god? Persephone? Any member of any pantheon anywhere, if not god? What would you call a non-corporeal force which answers prayers and accepts worship, if not a god? SR Ballard > On Nov 8, 2018, at 11:56 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:37 AM SR Ballard wrote: >> >> > I don?t mean to nitpick, but I actually feel like you didn?t understand what I was trying to explain. I?m trying to say that there is something ?less? than the Abrahamic idea of God (the all-knowing, all-mighty creator/judge) > > But the Abrahamic concept of a all-knowing all-mighty creator/judge is very very common in our culture and so we need a word for it, and we have one, "God". The concept of something less than that is also common and there is a word for that too, two of them actually, superhero and supervillain. > >> > A god would not have to fit the Abrahamic view in order to be a god, > > I think it does, or at least it should. If somebody insists on using the word "God" when they mean something far less than God they must realize they are almost certainly going to be misunderstood, and the only reason I can think of they would do that is although they have abandoned the idea of God they just can't abandon the 3 character ASCII sequence G-O-D. > >> > You can envision a being, with a still-limited intelligence and power, however being still smarter and more powerful than yourself, can?t you? > > Yes, I can envision Lex Luthor. > >> > I?m sure you could find a human who would fit that criteria actually. > > I have no doubt, but I wouldn't call that human God, there are plenty of other words in the English language I could use that would not cause misunderstanding the instant I made a comment about this very smart human. > > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 03:36:34 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:36:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > As a personality psychologist, I have an interest in testing. I like the Myers- > Briggs, for instance, on which I score as an INTJ. The shorthand for that category is Mastermind. I wonder if any of you have taken that test and know your scores and will share them with me. I can forward you an online test that won't take five minutes (yes, I took it and scored INTJ). Many of you come across as being in that category. > > Bill w I?m an INTP personally. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 13:47:29 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 08:47:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: <004101d47782$6018aa30$2049fe90$@rainier66.com> <005c01d477a4$3fd0d6e0$bf7284a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 5:36 PM BillK wrote: > > > *if it is just the total number of votes that is used the result isthat > one area of the country gets the right to decide how the otherarea should > be governed.* There is simply no way to get around that, in no form of government can everybody get their way. However it would be possible and would be nice if the area of the country the tells the other area what to do be the larger part. But in the USA that is not the case, the minority of the country gets to tell the majority of the country who will be the President, who will be a Senator, and even who will be a member of the House Of Representatives which is supposed to be the most democratic but due to gerrymandering isn't very representative or democratic at all. And by the way, in the USA the minority that has the power also happens to be the least educated. Note: When I said "suposed to be" I mente according to the Constitution. But as a practical matter the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, and now that it's full of the president's toadies and the chief law enforcement officer of the land the Attorney General (the new one that looks like Curley in the 3 stooges) is also a Trump stooge the Constitution is not going to protect us. *>It could lead to breakup of the UK or secessions in the USA.* If a minority in a country feels they are being treated unfairly that can cause some political instability, but if a majority feels that way it will cause vastly more. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 13:58:56 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 08:58:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting statistic In-Reply-To: References: <00de01d47878$2b1a4ea0$814eebe0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Here is another interesting statistic, In 2014 the Democrats didn't do nearly as well as they did in 2018 but even so they got 2,456,929 more votes in House elections than the republicans did, but the republicans GAINED 8 House seats and the democrats LOST 8 House seats. The cause of this was republican gerrymandering. Voters are supposed to choose their representatives but instead representatives choose their voters. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 14:47:03 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 09:47:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:10 PM Will Steinberg wrote: >>I think there is not a infinite sequence of "why" questions and after a >> finite number of them the sequence terminates in a brute fact. I think it's >> a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feel when it is being >> processed. >> > > *>Yes, we are in agreement with one another. I am not sure how you define > "data" though.* > Date is a piece of information and to Claude Shannon information is just a measure of surprise, it's the same definition computer designers use and they couldn't make computers without Shannon's Information Theory. The smallest unit of information is the bit; you didn't know before receiving the bit if 2 things were the same or different, after receiving the bit to your surprise you realize they are the same. >> Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but >> unless I cut off my toe I'll never know. >> > > > *Well it's not my fault you're not willing to cut your toe off to test > it, then. * > I'd be willing to cut off my toe if I thought I would learn how consciousness works by doing so, but I suspect it wouldn't be enough and I'd have to remove other parts of my body and by the time I reached enlightenment there wouldn't be any of me left. > *You can't be a solipsist, sorry; don't worry, if you were the only thing > that existed I would tell you.* > Is this list getting a bit solipsistic or is it just me? * > I don't understand why you would think that the consciousness of one > human you are looking at, with two observed hemispheres in the brain that > are separately functional in terms of information processing but also > integrated, is any different in flavor from the consciousness of, two > humans* > The difference is one of degree not of kind, in particular degree of communication. The corpus callosum is a broadband information link between the left and right hemispheres of the brain, if it is cut you have a split brain and a split mind. You and I are communicating right now but my internet connection is not as information rich as what the corpus callosum can do, if it was then every thought I had you would have and every thought you had I would have and the resulting being would be named Will Clark or John Steinberg. > *My conception of 'God' is indeed like a Jupiter Brain,* > If that's what you're talking about then you should call it a Jupiter Brain, if you insist on calling it "God" you are begging to be misunderstood. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 15:03:19 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 09:03:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks. Interesting. I have taken the MB several times and a couple of times I scored INTP, and the times I scores INTJ the J was borderline. bill w On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 9:58 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > As a personality psychologist, I have an interest in testing. I like the > Myers- > Briggs, for instance, on which I score as an INTJ. The shorthand for that > category is Mastermind. I wonder if any of you have taken that test and > know your scores and will share them with me. I can forward you an online > test that won't take five minutes (yes, I took it and scored INTJ). Many > of you come across as being in that category. > > Bill w > > > I?m an INTP personally. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Sat Nov 10 15:41:25 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 10:41:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 09:49 John Clark On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:10 PM Will Steinberg > wrote: > > >>I think there is not a infinite sequence of "why" questions and after a >>> finite number of them the sequence terminates in a brute fact. I think it's >>> a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feel when it is being >>> processed. >>> >> >> *>Yes, we are in agreement with one another. I am not sure how you >> define "data" though.* >> > > Date is a piece of information and to Claude Shannon information is just > a measure of surprise, it's the same definition computer designers use and > they couldn't make computers without Shannon's Information Theory. The > smallest unit of information is the bit; you didn't know before receiving > the bit if 2 things were the same or different, after receiving the bit > to your surprise you realize they are the same. > Surprise? That's the most teleological thing I've heard in this thread. Who is being surprised? >> Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but >>> unless I cut off my toe I'll never know. >>> >> >> > *Well it's not my fault you're not willing to cut your toe off to test >> it, then. * >> > > I'd be willing to cut off my toe if I thought I would learn how > consciousness works by doing so, but I suspect it wouldn't be enough and > I'd have to remove other parts of my body and by the time I reached > enlightenment there wouldn't be any of me left. > I was simply doing a joke about how bad your analogy was, because the thing you described would actually be very simple to do. > *You can't be a solipsist, sorry; don't worry, if you were the only thing >> that existed I would tell you.* >> > > Is this list getting a bit solipsistic or is it just me? > Heh. * > I don't understand why you would think that the consciousness of one >> human you are looking at, with two observed hemispheres in the brain that >> are separately functional in terms of information processing but also >> integrated, is any different in flavor from the consciousness of, two >> humans* >> > > The difference is one of degree not of kind, in particular degree of > communication. The corpus callosum is a broadband information link between > the left and right hemispheres of the brain, if it is cut you have a split > brain and a split mind. You and I are communicating right now but my > internet connection is not as information rich as what the corpus callosum > can do, if it was then every thought I had you would have and every thought > you had I would have and the resulting being would be named Will Clark or > John Steinberg. > But you're wrong, the left hemisphere does NOT have every thought the right has and vice versa, which is the entire point of my argument. They can be separated and function independently. Furthermore, there ARE certainly pieces of information that only exist spread across two or more brains. I don't believe you will address this matter because you either can't understand what I'm trying to say or just because you refuse to stop being a vitalist and thinking the brain is a magical special unit and is the only object in universe in which data can be processed.. > *My conception of 'God' is indeed like a Jupiter Brain,* >> > > If that's what you're talking about then you should call it a Jupiter > Brain, if you insist on calling it "God" you are begging to be > misunderstood. > I don't know what you think makes a Jupiter brain that contains uploaded humans conscious, but somehow doesn't make groups of corporal humans jointly conscious. It is a simple exercise to see how absurd it is to draw lines around anything you call conscious, because of how easy it is for consciousness to extend arbitrarily beyond those boundaries through any manner of the ways we usually port data out of our brains, like writing books or speaking. You say our Internet connection is not as information rich as the corpus callosun, so if you must respond to one thing from this message, PLEASE tell me what the level of 'richness' must be in order for some consciousness to be whole. Noting of course that you are incorrect about EVERY thought being shared between the two hemispheres. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 15:51:57 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 09:51:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think that whoever is going to refer to the split brain had better do some research before posting anything. I just get these little hints that somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. bill w On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 9:46 AM Will Steinberg wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 09:49 John Clark >> On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 7:10 PM Will Steinberg >> wrote: >> >> >>I think there is not a infinite sequence of "why" questions and after >>>> a finite number of them the sequence terminates in a brute fact. I think >>>> it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feel when it is being >>>> processed. >>>> >>> >>> *>Yes, we are in agreement with one another. I am not sure how you >>> define "data" though.* >>> >> >> Date is a piece of information and to Claude Shannon information is just >> a measure of surprise, it's the same definition computer designers use >> and they couldn't make computers without Shannon's Information Theory. >> The smallest unit of information is the bit; you didn't know before >> receiving the bit if 2 things were the same or different, after >> receiving the bit to your surprise you realize they are the same. >> > > Surprise? That's the most teleological thing I've heard in this thread. > Who is being surprised? > > > >> Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but >>>> unless I cut off my toe I'll never know. >>>> >>> >>> > *Well it's not my fault you're not willing to cut your toe off to >>> test it, then. * >>> >> >> I'd be willing to cut off my toe if I thought I would learn how >> consciousness works by doing so, but I suspect it wouldn't be enough and >> I'd have to remove other parts of my body and by the time I reached >> enlightenment there wouldn't be any of me left. >> > > I was simply doing a joke about how bad your analogy was, because the > thing you described would actually be very simple to do. > > > > *You can't be a solipsist, sorry; don't worry, if you were the only >>> thing that existed I would tell you.* >>> >> >> Is this list getting a bit solipsistic or is it just me? >> > > Heh. > > > * > I don't understand why you would think that the consciousness of one >>> human you are looking at, with two observed hemispheres in the brain that >>> are separately functional in terms of information processing but also >>> integrated, is any different in flavor from the consciousness of, two >>> humans* >>> >> >> The difference is one of degree not of kind, in particular degree of >> communication. The corpus callosum is a broadband information link between >> the left and right hemispheres of the brain, if it is cut you have a split >> brain and a split mind. You and I are communicating right now but my >> internet connection is not as information rich as what the corpus callosum >> can do, if it was then every thought I had you would have and every thought >> you had I would have and the resulting being would be named Will Clark or >> John Steinberg. >> > > But you're wrong, the left hemisphere does NOT have every thought the > right has and vice versa, which is the entire point of my argument. They > can be separated and function independently. Furthermore, there ARE > certainly pieces of information that only exist spread across two or more > brains. > > I don't believe you will address this matter because you either can't > understand what I'm trying to say or just because you refuse to stop being > a vitalist and thinking the brain is a magical special unit and is the only > object in universe in which data can be processed.. > > > > *My conception of 'God' is indeed like a Jupiter Brain,* >>> >> >> If that's what you're talking about then you should call it a Jupiter >> Brain, if you insist on calling it "God" you are begging to be >> misunderstood. >> > > I don't know what you think makes a Jupiter brain that contains uploaded > humans conscious, but somehow doesn't make groups of corporal humans > jointly conscious. It is a simple exercise to see how absurd it is to draw > lines around anything you call conscious, because of how easy it is for > consciousness to extend arbitrarily beyond those boundaries through any > manner of the ways we usually port data out of our brains, like writing > books or speaking. > > You say our Internet connection is not as information rich as the corpus > callosun, so if you must respond to one thing from this message, PLEASE > tell me what the level of 'richness' must be in order for some > consciousness to be whole. Noting of course that you are incorrect about > EVERY thought being shared between the two hemispheres. > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Sat Nov 10 16:01:21 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:01:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:56 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I think that whoever is going to refer to the split brain had better do > some research before posting anything. I just get these little hints that > somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. > > bill w > I studied neuroscience, how about you? And I know you didn't mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain when you said "split brain" but you should maybe read it as a quick primer. There are plenty of fun references at the bottom if you wish to get more technical. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 17:04:37 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:04:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've consistently tested as 'ENTP' for over a decade for whatever that's worth. The T can read close to F though, depending on how histrionic I'm feeling at the moment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 17:20:55 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:20:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:47 AM Will Steinberg wrote: >> Date is a piece of information and to Claude Shannon information is just >> a measure of surprise, it's the same definition computer designers use >> and they couldn't make computers without Shannon's Information Theory. >> The smallest unit of information is the bit; you didn't know before >> receiving the bit if 2 things were the same or different, after >> receiving the bit to your surprise you realize they are the same. >> > > *> Surprise? That's the most teleological thing I've heard in this > thread. * > That is true. If information is the way data feels when it is being processed then information would HAVE to be a teleological concept. Theology works but not on everything. Teleology has proven its worth many times by correctly predicting what animals and our fellow human beings will do next, but it only works on things that are intelligent (and I have a strong hunch conscious) its not of much help in figuring out what motion a non-intelligent object such as a comet will follow. I do admit that when talking about genes the language can sometimes sound a bit teleological because unlike comets genes can duplicate themselves and seem to "want" to do things, but this says more about English than anything else and without exception the purposeful language can always be translated into non-teleological language even if its less poetic and elegant. > > *the left hemisphere does NOT have every thought the right has and vice > versa, which is the entire point of my argument. They can be separated and > function independently. * > Yes if you cut the corpus callosum, a split brain results in a split mind. > > *Furthermore, there ARE certainly pieces of information that only exist > spread across two or more brains.* > If true then you'd have 2 minds that are very similar but not identical. If you're asking me are there really 2 people there or only one I think there is a continuum and is a matter of degree. There is nothing special about consciousness in that regard, it is the nature of everything that is on a continuum. A 90 pound man is clearly thin and a 900 pound man is clearly fat but there is not a point where a thin man gains one ounce and is instantly transformed from a thin man to a fat man. *> I don't know what you think makes a Jupiter brain that contains uploaded > humans conscious, but somehow doesn't make groups of corporal humans > jointly conscious. * > I don't see how I could think that either, so it's a good thing I don't. > > *PLEASE tell me what the level of 'richness' must be in order for some > consciousness to be whole. * > 42. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 17:22:37 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:22:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 11:09 AM Will Steinberg wrote: > I've consistently tested as 'ENTP' for over a decade for whatever that's > worth. The T can read close to F though, depending on how histrionic I'm > feeling at the moment. > Thanks. Did not expect an extrovert. 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 interzone at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 17:26:29 2018 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:26:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We can finally agree on something! On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 12:23 PM John Clark > >> > *PLEASE tell me what the level of 'richness' must be in order for some >> consciousness to be whole. * >> > > 42. > > 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 Sat Nov 10 17:28:34 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 11:28:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:17 AM Will Steinberg wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:56 AM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think that whoever is going to refer to the split brain had better do >> some research before posting anything. I just get these little hints that >> somebody doesn't know what they are talking about. >> >> bill w >> > > I studied neuroscience, how about you? > > And I know you didn't mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain > when you said "split brain" but you should maybe read it as a quick > primer. There are plenty of fun references at the bottom if you wish to > get more technical. > I certainly did mean split brain as in the Sperry experiments. That was about at the end of my academic career. I did have some physio but did not ever get to teach it, so I did not keep up with it. I am sure your knowledge is decades ahead of mine. I do get antsy when 'minds' are mentioned, and 'split', since there is still great confusion about the word 'schizophrenia'. And, of course, one of the minds which are split is nonverbal. 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 Sat Nov 10 18:09:55 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 13:09:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 12:23 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:47 AM Will Steinberg > wrote: > > *> I don't know what you think makes a Jupiter brain that contains >> uploaded humans conscious, but somehow doesn't make groups of corporal >> humans jointly conscious. * >> > > I don't see how I could think that either, so it's a good thing I don't. > I'm not sure what we even disagree about! I suppose the difference is in what we believe is the degree of unification between what you refer to as "brute facts". In the same way the electromagnetic and weak forces and then the strong force unify at high energies, I think that consciousness, at some level, has to be contiguous with the rest of reality. In other words I don't believe there is more than one or possibly two brute facts per universe, and I also think it's probably true that this brute fact is similar or the same for different universes. They would be something like 'AND' and 'NOT'. I think the symmetry breaking leading to differentiation happens when this brute factuality butts up against itself. And in general that these facts are recursively defined and that it may indeed be turtles all the way down. I just think it is silly to believe that the other brute facts you refer to (such as the fundamental forces) are ubiquitous throughout the universe, but the brute fact of consciousness/qualia only occurs in brains. As I have said, that seems akin to the belief that gravity only exists on Earth. Furthermore, I don't think that it makes sense to make judgments on what is or is not a brute fact when we still have so many unknowns, such as dark energy/matter. For all we know, it could be just as likely that these unknowns are related to consciousness as they are related to something like gravity or electromagnetism. Of particular note would be the idea that we can look at a system like a human brain and try and describe everything that is there in terms of ways we currently understand the universe (such as energy, matter, &c.) and yet there still seems to be an extra brute fact there which is called consciousness, that appears to have an effect on the other forces present in reality. And that this is similar to the idea that we can try and describe cosmic entities in terms of those understood aspects of the universe and yet there still appears to be a heretofore unknown fact in the form of dark energy/matter that exists beyond what we know and also has an effect on the other forces present in reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 18:22:52 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:22:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: will wrote - I just think it is silly to believe that the other brute facts you refer to (such as the fundamental forces) are ubiquitous throughout the universe, but the brute fact of consciousness/qualia only occurs in brains. Au Contraire - I think since neurons are specialized cells found only in brains of some kind, that it would be strange indeed if they possessed no qualities distinct to them. bill w On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 12:14 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 12:23 PM John Clark wrote: > >> On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:47 AM Will Steinberg >> wrote: >> >> *> I don't know what you think makes a Jupiter brain that contains >>> uploaded humans conscious, but somehow doesn't make groups of corporal >>> humans jointly conscious. * >>> >> >> I don't see how I could think that either, so it's a good thing I don't. >> > > I'm not sure what we even disagree about! > > I suppose the difference is in what we believe is the degree of > unification between what you refer to as "brute facts". In the same way > the electromagnetic and weak forces and then the strong force unify at high > energies, I think that consciousness, at some level, has to be contiguous > with the rest of reality. In other words I don't believe there is more > than one or possibly two brute facts per universe, and I also think it's > probably true that this brute fact is similar or the same for different > universes. They would be something like 'AND' and 'NOT'. I think the > symmetry breaking leading to differentiation happens when this brute > factuality butts up against itself. And in general that these facts are > recursively defined and that it may indeed be turtles all the way down. > > I just think it is silly to believe that the other brute facts you refer > to (such as the fundamental forces) are ubiquitous throughout the universe, > but the brute fact of consciousness/qualia only occurs in brains. As I > have said, that seems akin to the belief that gravity only exists on Earth. > > Furthermore, I don't think that it makes sense to make judgments on what > is or is not a brute fact when we still have so many unknowns, such as dark > energy/matter. For all we know, it could be just as likely that these > unknowns are related to consciousness as they are related to something like > gravity or electromagnetism. Of particular note would be the idea that we > can look at a system like a human brain and try and describe everything > that is there in terms of ways we currently understand the universe (such > as energy, matter, &c.) and yet there still seems to be an extra brute fact > there which is called consciousness, that appears to have an effect on the > other forces present in reality. And that this is similar to the idea that > we can try and describe cosmic entities in terms of those understood > aspects of the universe and yet there still appears to be a heretofore > unknown fact in the form of dark energy/matter that exists beyond what we > know and also has an effect on the other forces present in reality. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Sat Nov 10 21:02:37 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 16:02:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 13:25 William Flynn Wallace will wrote - > > I just think it is silly to believe that the other brute facts you refer > to (such as the fundamental forces) are ubiquitous throughout the universe, > but the brute fact of consciousness/qualia only occurs in brains. > > Au Contraire - I think since neurons are specialized cells found only in > brains of some kind, that it would be strange indeed if they possessed no > qualities distinct to them. > Sorry to be blunt, but with all due respect: that is an absurd proposition, undeserving of an "au contraire" and unfitting for an intelligent ExI poster like yourself. There are plenty of relatively distinct cells in the domain of life--electroreceptor cells in animals like sharks come to mind--but that doesn't mean it would be at all sensible to deduce from their existence that they were responsible an entirely new and different aspect of reality. There's a difference between distinct structural properties and distinct intrinsic properties. I am perfectly willing to agree with the fact that neurons may be structurally unique in many ways, but it does not follow that their structural uniqueness leads to the creation of a completely unexplained aspect of reality. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 22:06:20 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 16:06:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 3:07 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018, 13:25 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > >> will wrote - >> >> I just think it is silly to believe that the other brute facts you refer >> to (such as the fundamental forces) are ubiquitous throughout the universe, >> but the brute fact of consciousness/qualia only occurs in brains. >> >> Au Contraire - I think since neurons are specialized cells found only in >> brains of some kind, that it would be strange indeed if they possessed no >> qualities distinct to them. >> > > Sorry to be blunt, but with all due respect: that is an absurd > proposition, undeserving of an "au contraire" and unfitting for an > intelligent ExI poster like yourself. There are plenty of relatively > distinct cells in the domain of life--electroreceptor cells in animals like > sharks come to mind--but that doesn't mean it would be at all sensible to > deduce from their existence that they were responsible an entirely new and > different aspect of reality. > > There's a difference between distinct structural properties and distinct > intrinsic properties. I am perfectly willing to agree with the fact that > neurons may be structurally unique in many ways, but it does not follow > that their structural uniqueness leads to the creation of a completely > unexplained aspect of reality. > Thanks for being easy on me. I never said that neurons were responsible for consciousness, but I think it's an idea worth exploring. I also cannot help but think that, without any data whatsoever (though I did read a book written by a researcher of glial cells), that glial cells are going to a part of whatever consciousness is. We know far less about them than about neurons. If you would do me this favor: I have read the sentence fragment below and simply do not understand it. Some things are ubiquitous and others are not. What does this have to do with anything? Life is about the most extreme rarity there is. And consciousness is even rarer. So what? And it's not as if we know nothing about consciousness as you suggest ('completely unexplained aspect of reality'). I just think it is silly to believe that the other brute facts you refer to (such as the fundamental forces) are ubiquitous throughout the universe, Try this one on for size: consciousness stems from the absence of the activation of inhibiting neurons (in the RAS, reticular activating system) that keep us asleep. (Can anyone produce a more obvious statement?) Perhaps the unconscious which does all of our thinking turns off those neurons when it is finished with whatever it is doing while we are asleep. So I suggest more research on sleep. 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 avant at sollegro.com Sat Nov 10 22:40:59 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 14:40:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > I have no idea if that's true or not because I still have my Broca's > area. Maybe I wouldn't be conscious if I didn't have a left big toe, but > unless I cut off my toe I'll never know. Actually this experiment has already been done, and interestingly enough, not only would you be conscious, you would be conscious of your missing toe. Its called phantom limb syndrome. Google the work of V.S. Ramachandran for details. This indicates that your brain keeps simulating your toe even after its gone. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 22:49:37 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 17:49:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 1:14 PM Will Steinberg wrote: *> I just think it is silly to believe that the other brute facts you refer > to (such as the fundamental forces) are ubiquitous throughout the universe,* I didn't say the Strong Nuclear Force, the Electroweak Force or Gravity was a brute fact, maybe they are and maybe they're not. The only brute fact I mentioned was that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed. > *but the brute fact of consciousness/qualia only occurs in brains. * My axiom is consciousness/qualia occurs when information processing produces intelligent behavior. Maybe it occurs other times too, maybe rocks are conscious, but I doubt it. > I don't think that it makes sense to make judgments on what is or is not > a brute fact when we still have so many unknowns, such as dark > energy/matter. > It would be very easy to dream up a theory that says dark energy/matter has something to do with consciousness and who knows the theory might even be true, but even if it is we will never be able to prove it or even provide evidence for or against it. And that is true of all consciousness theories but it is not true of intelligence theories, snd that's why they are so much more interesting. > * > For all we know, it could be just as likely that these unknowns are > related to consciousness as they are related to something like gravity or > electromagnetism. * > We already know that Dark Matter is related to gravity, we've never seen a hint of it but its conceivable that someday we may detect some sort of interaction between electromagnetism and Dark Matter, but its not conceivable we will ever find a connection between ANYTHING and ANY consciousness other than our own unless we make use of the axiom than intelligent behavior implies consciousness John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 22:57:35 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 17:57:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:46 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > *Actually this experiment has already been done, and interestingly enough, > not only would you be conscious, you would be conscious of your missing > toe. Its called phantom limb syndrome.* If you don't use my axiom the phantom limb syndrome tell you nothing about consciousness, all it tells you is if you cut off somebody's toe sometimes they make noises with their mouth that sounds like "I don't have a toe but it hunts anyway". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Nov 10 23:53:53 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 18:53:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 6:12 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 5:46 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > >> >> *Actually this experiment has already been done, and interestingly >> enough, not only would you be conscious, you would be conscious of your >> missing toe. Its called phantom limb syndrome.* > > > If you don't use my axiom the phantom limb syndrome tell you nothing > about consciousness, all it tells you is if you cut off somebody's toe > sometimes they make noises with their mouth that sounds like "I don't have > a toe but it hunts anyway". > Quite a dreary way of thinking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 16:59:16 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:59:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:08 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > *> A good litmus test these days is asking any self-identified libertarian > if they?re for open borders.* > Or if there're for Free Trade. The trouble is the number of people that you or I would consider libertarian are vastly outnumbered by the number of people who call themselves libertarian, as a result the word has lost its meaning. And the Libertarian Party certainly hasn't helped, it utterly disgraced itself in 2016. > * > If they?re not, then they?re not a libertarian. * > And if they believe in even 5% of what Trump says or believe in "alternate facts" then they don't believe in the Scientific Method, and for me that outranks even libertarian philosophy; the only thing that outranks that is direct experience. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 17:29:40 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:29:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: And if they believe in even 5% of what Trump says or believe in "alternate facts" then they don't believe in the Scientific Method, and for me that outranks even libertarian philosophy; the only thing that outranks that is direct experience. John K Clark (Direct experience can be very misleading, John - you don't want to generalize from a sample of one) Just where in school at any level did you learn decision-making? Hah. I taught it to every 101 class in a way, when I taught alternatives to empiricism. Most people have no idea what that word means, including college graduates in my family. This is a national educational shame. How do people decide to get married? Which car? Insurance? Rent or own? Darwin did it in part, re getting married. Ben Franklin wrote a letter to a friend explaining his method, which is described below: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/how-to-make-a-decision-like-ben-franklin/ Simple (if you can multiply) - effective. bill w On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 11:04 AM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 4:08 PM Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > > >> *> A good litmus test these days is asking any self-identified >> libertarian if they?re for open borders.* >> > > Or if there're for Free Trade. The trouble is the number of people that > you or I would consider libertarian are vastly outnumbered by the number of > people who call themselves libertarian, as a result the word has lost its > meaning. And the Libertarian Party certainly hasn't helped, it utterly > disgraced itself in 2016. > > >> * > If they?re not, then they?re not a libertarian. * >> > > And if they believe in even 5% of what Trump says or believe in "alternate > facts" then they don't believe in the Scientific Method, and for me that > outranks even libertarian philosophy; the only thing that outranks that is > direct experience. > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 11 18:08:34 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 10:08:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002d01d479e9$90611790$b12346b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Libertarian think tank >? How do people decide to get married? Darwin did it in part, re getting married. ? Simple (if you can multiply) - effective. bill w The heart has reasons that reason knows not. Pascal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 18:08:44 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 13:08:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:35 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>And if they believe in even 5% of what Trump says or believe in >> "alternate facts" then they don't believe in the Scientific Method, and for >> me that outranks even libertarian philosophy; the only thing that outranks >> that is direct experience. > > >*Direct experience can be very misleading* > By Direct Experience I mean immediate sense perception. If I hit my finger with a hammer (quite likely as I'm not very good with tools) and am in pain but the Scientific Method said I'm not in pain then I'm still in pain and the Scientific Method was wrong. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 18:22:30 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 12:22:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: <002d01d479e9$90611790$b12346b0$@rainier66.com> References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> <002d01d479e9$90611790$b12346b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The heart has reasons that reason knows not. Pascal (Spike wrote) Who said that Ben or Charles did not use emotion to determine the weights of the pro or con arguments? Damasio says that they, like anyone else, has to, in fact. Can't be left out by trying to ignore them. bill w On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:13 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Libertarian think tank > > > > >? > > > > How do people decide to get married? > > Darwin did it in part, re getting married. ? > > Simple (if you can multiply) - effective. > > > > bill w > > > > > > > > > > > > The heart has reasons that reason knows not. > > > > Pascal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 18:39:13 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 12:39:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Libertarian think tank In-Reply-To: References: <15CBFF60-1369-4314-A75D-1285DA364734@gmail.com> <5587036A-97DA-4C46-AD47-D92D64D175CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: am in pain but the Scientific Method said I'm not in pain then I'm still in pain and the Scientific Method was wrong. John K Clark You are really stretching it now. Whatever method was used to tell you you are not in pain was not a well-designed study. However - I do recall some calculations were made by ??? which told them that bumblebees could not fly, so you have a point. bill w On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:24 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 12:35 PM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > >>And if they believe in even 5% of what Trump says or believe in >>> "alternate facts" then they don't believe in the Scientific Method, and for >>> me that outranks even libertarian philosophy; the only thing that outranks >>> that is direct experience. >> >> > > >*Direct experience can be very misleading* >> > > By Direct Experience I mean immediate sense perception. If I hit my finger > with a hammer (quite likely as I'm not very good with tools) and am in pain > but the Scientific Method said I'm not in pain then I'm still in pain and > the Scientific Method was wrong. > > John K Clark > > > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 19:06:09 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 19:06:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem Message-ID: In the UK there exists the Public Order Act 1986 which aims to ensure that individual rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are balanced against the rights of others to go about their daily lives without being harassed, alarmed or distressed. The law states: An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling. In effect this means that you can be as offensive as you like in private, but you are in trouble if you go around harassing or threatening people in public. A case has arisen recently where an offensive private party was recorded and the video posted online. The men involved were arrested by police on suspicion that a public order offence had been committed and their home was searched for evidence. The case has not been decided yet, but my opinion is that no charges will be made, on the grounds that the men did not expect their private behaviour to be publicised online and thus offend the public. This raises the problem that because we now live in an environment where everybody carries a phone that can record video, is there no longer the expectation that any offensive behaviour will be private? Do we have to always behave as though thousands of people are watching? BillK From avant at sollegro.com Sun Nov 11 19:28:43 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:28:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: <5b6c59ab4b59bd5e70fdae2c34628fd7.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: > If you don't use my axiom the phantom limb syndrome tell you nothing > about consciousness, all it tells you is if you cut off somebody's toe > sometimes they make noises with their mouth that sounds like "I don't > have a toe but it hunts anyway". I have twice proven the undecidability of consciousness on this list, first as a consequence of Russell's Paradox and then later as a corollary to Rice's Theorem so I am halfway on board here. The problem is that unless ALL Turing machines are intelligent or NO Turing machines are intelligent, then intelligence is undecidable in Turing machines. In other words intelligence is either trivial property or undecidable as well. So your axiom would require two undecidable properties to be correlated. Which they certainly appear to be experientially. We certainly use the correlation to infer consciousness in our pets for example. The caution flags go up, however, because the combination of these two undecidable properties is undecidable also. Your axiom is very likely only a heuristic that would work on roughly human scales +/- 3 orders of magnitude or so. This is because differences in scale limit communication and for large differences limit even perception. You can't infer the intelligence of something you can't see for example. And even if the galaxy was axiomatically intelligent, would take millions of years for you to notice any "intelligent behavior". Which is time most humans don't have. Time passes very differently for brains at different size scales. Therefore your axiom will be subject to false positives, where you see one off illusory patterns in random phenomena like faces in the clouds that you think imply intelligence. And you will also have false negatives where you underestimate or fail to notice the intelligence of beings very much larger or smaller than you are or equivalently beings very much faster or slower than you. But all in all, I find your axiom a useful heuristic so long as you keep in mind its limitations and ultimate undecidability. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 20:00:37 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 14:00:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: <5b6c59ab4b59bd5e70fdae2c34628fd7.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <5b6c59ab4b59bd5e70fdae2c34628fd7.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I have twice proven the undecidability of consciousness on this list, first as a consequence of Russell's Paradox and then later as a corollary to Rice's Theorem so I am halfway on board here. stuart I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math another, I'll go with reality. Consciousness is a physical reality with which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. bill w On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:33 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > John Clark wrote: > > > If you don't use my axiom the phantom limb syndrome tell you nothing > > about consciousness, all it tells you is if you cut off somebody's toe > > sometimes they make noises with their mouth that sounds like "I don't > > have a toe but it hunts anyway". > > I have twice proven the undecidability of consciousness on this list, > first as a consequence of Russell's Paradox and then later as a corollary > to Rice's Theorem so I am halfway on board here. > > The problem is that unless ALL Turing machines are intelligent or NO > Turing machines are intelligent, then intelligence is undecidable in > Turing machines. In other words intelligence is either trivial property or > undecidable as well. > > So your axiom would require two undecidable properties to be correlated. > Which they certainly appear to be experientially. We certainly use the > correlation to infer consciousness in our pets for example. > > The caution flags go up, however, because the combination of these two > undecidable properties is undecidable also. Your axiom is very likely only > a heuristic that would work on roughly human scales +/- 3 orders of > magnitude or so. > > This is because differences in scale limit communication and for large > differences limit even perception. You can't infer the intelligence of > something you can't see for example. And even if the galaxy was > axiomatically intelligent, would take millions of years for you to notice > any "intelligent behavior". Which is time most humans don't have. Time > passes very differently for brains at different size scales. > > Therefore your axiom will be subject to false positives, where you see one > off illusory patterns in random phenomena like faces in the clouds that > you think imply intelligence. > > And you will also have false negatives where you underestimate or fail to > notice the intelligence of beings very much larger or smaller than you are > or equivalently beings very much faster or slower than you. > > But all in all, I find your axiom a useful heuristic so long as you keep > in mind its limitations and ultimate undecidability. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 20:04:52 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 14:04:52 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: bill k wrote: is there no longer the expectation that any offensive behaviour will be private? Do we have to always behave as though thousands of people are watching? The problem I have with it is that anyone can claim to be offended and you can't prove elsewise. Without offending someone, there would be no revolution, no evolution, nothing but the status quo, which paradoxically, would offend many. This simply makes no sense. You are going to give judges the upper hand in society because they ultimately have to decide what is offensive? Madness. bill w On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM BillK wrote: > In the UK there exists the Public Order Act 1986 which aims to ensure > that individual rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly > are balanced against the rights of others to go about their daily > lives without being harassed, alarmed or distressed. > The law states: > An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a > private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or > behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible > representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the > person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or > another dwelling. > > In effect this means that you can be as offensive as you like in > private, but you are in trouble if you go around harassing or > threatening people in public. > > A case has arisen recently where an offensive private party was > recorded and the video posted online. The men involved were arrested > by police on suspicion that a public order offence had been committed > and their home was searched for evidence. The case has not been > decided yet, but my opinion is that no charges will be made, on the > grounds that the men did not expect their private behaviour to be > publicised online and thus offend the public. > > This raises the problem that because we now live in an environment > where everybody carries a phone that can record video, is there no > longer the expectation that any offensive behaviour will be private? Do > we have to always behave as though thousands of people are watching? > > 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 avant at sollegro.com Sun Nov 11 22:27:23 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 14:27:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: <64dbaf6a0d8660084de3607471699e81.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Bill Wallace wrote: > I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand > these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math > another, I'll go with reality. But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a honeybee can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as well. Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you notice to that which has been important to your survival. This is demonstrated by such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other well documented effects. Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering data by doing experiments will certainly help as would careful statistical analysis of the data and good data storage. > Consciousness is a physical reality with > which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think its IQ is and why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 23:13:52 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:13:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: <5b6c59ab4b59bd5e70fdae2c34628fd7.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <5b6c59ab4b59bd5e70fdae2c34628fd7.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 2:34 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > * > I have twice proven the undecidability of consciousness on this list, > first as a consequence of Russell's Paradox and then later as a corollary > to Rice's Theorem so I am halfway on board here.* I don't need Rice or Russell's help to know that I can't directly detect any consciousness except for my own. > The problem is that unless ALL Turing machines are intelligent or NO > Turing machines are intelligent, then intelligence is undecidable in > Turing machines. In other words intelligence is either trivial property or > undecidable as well. > You seem to be using the words "intelligence" and "consciousness" interchangeably. I don't have a good definition of either one but for intelligence I have something better, examples, lots and lots of examples. Unfortunately I have only one example of consciousness and that example is available only to me. > > *you will also have false negatives where you underestimate or fail to > notice the intelligence of beings* If I underestimate a being's intelligence that's my fault not the axiom's. And it says if something behaves intelligently then its conscious, it does NOT say if something does not behave intelligently then its not conscious. The axiom may not be a perfect tool for detecting consciousness in others but its all I've got; and even if its not true I'd have to believe in it anyway because I could not function if I really thought I was the only conscious being in the universe. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 23:29:23 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 17:29:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: <64dbaf6a0d8660084de3607471699e81.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <64dbaf6a0d8660084de3607471699e81.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Yes, of course we are limited, more than most people know, and maybe more than anyone knows. But we are conscious and we know that. If you don't like that word, use another, but there has to be some word for the experience of it. Problems of definition. Problems locating it in the brain. But we know at our deepest level that we have it. It may be the most fundamental aspect of humans. Will anyone dispute that? (will get back to you on the attached video tomorrow) bill w On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 5:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Bill Wallace wrote: > > > I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand > > these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math > > another, I'll go with reality. > > But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a > relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a honeybee > can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. > > Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as well. > > Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you notice > to that which has been important to your survival. This is demonstrated by > such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other well documented > effects. > > Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering > data by doing experiments will certainly help as would careful > statistical analysis of the data and good data storage. > > > Consciousness is a physical reality with > > which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. > > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think > its IQ is and why: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 > > Stuart LaForge > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Nov 11 23:33:57 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:33:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <5b6c59ab4b59bd5e70fdae2c34628fd7.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 3:06 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *Consciousness is a physical reality with which you can do experiments > with testable hypotheses.* If you don't assume intelligent behavior implies consciousness the only consciousness you can do experiments on is your own. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Nov 12 00:07:04 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 16:07:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? Message-ID: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Billw wrote: > (will get back to you on the attached video tomorrow) bill w Ok. Feel free to watch it sped up by 2x. You can do that from the options menu. Just be warned, it makes the subject appear somewhat menacing. ;-) Stuart LaForge On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at > 5:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > Bill Wallace wrote: > > >> I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand >> these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math >> another, I'll go with reality. > > But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a > relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a honeybee > can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. > > Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as > well. > > Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you > notice to that which has been important to your survival. This is > demonstrated by such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other well > documented effects. > > Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering > data by? doing experiments will certainly help as would careful statistical > analysis of the data and good data storage. > >> Consciousness is a physical reality with >> which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. > > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think > its IQ is and why: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 > > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | > > > Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 15:20:53 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:20:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] puzzle Message-ID: 50+ 50 = 0 50 + 10 = 40 50 - 10 = 40 30 + 20 = 50 OR 10 10 + 10 = 0 OR 20 0 + 100 = 0 48 + 4 = 48 OR 44 I will send more if needed. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 17:06:29 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 11:06:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think > its IQ is and why: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 > > Stuart LaForge Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to 'get it'. What with my heat tolerance being so low, I did not try to get close enough to the subject to perform the test, so I have to say it's untestable. Since it is doing what it designed to do perfectly, then I have to say, given its very limited behavior range, it's like a person with an IQ of 25 who can bag groceries very adequately. Perhaps that person has Down's Syndrome. They have a reputation for having a sunny personality. So what should I be getting out of this? bill w > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Billw wrote: > > > (will get back to you on the attached video tomorrow) bill w > > Ok. Feel free to watch it sped up by 2x. You can do that from the options > menu. > Just be warned, it makes the subject appear somewhat menacing. ;-) > > Stuart LaForge > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at > > 5:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > > > > Bill Wallace wrote: > > > > > >> I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand > >> these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math > >> another, I'll go with reality. > > > > But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a > > relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a honeybee > > can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. > > > > Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as > > well. > > > > Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you > > notice to that which has been important to your survival. This is > > demonstrated by such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other well > > documented effects. > > > > Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering > > data by doing experiments will certainly help as would careful > statistical > > analysis of the data and good data storage. > > > >> Consciousness is a physical reality with > >> which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. > > > > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. > > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you > think > > its IQ is and why: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 > > > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | > > > > > > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 12 17:25:20 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 09:25:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <002101d47aac$b090a4e0$11b1eea0$@rainier66.com> * Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think > its IQ is and why: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 > > Stuart LaForge Mr. Psychologist really is a star! Hard to tell his IQ from this video alone however. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Nov 12 18:06:06 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 10:06:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science Message-ID: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> BillW wrote: > Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to 'get it'.? What with my > heat tolerance being so low, I did not try to get close enough to the > subject to perform the test, so I have to say it's untestable.? Since it > is doing what it designed to do perfectly, then I have to say, given its > very limited behavior range, it's like a person with an IQ of 25 who can > bag groceries very adequately.? Perhaps that person has Down's Syndrome.? > They have a reputation for having a sunny personality. > So what should I be getting out of this? You had earlier wrote: "Consciousness is a physical reality with which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses." I wanted to see how you tried to distinguish signs of intelligence/consciousness in something very much larger than you were. In something so very different than a human being, what constitutes intelligent behavior and what constitutes merely complex behavior might be hard to distinguish. Xenopsychology is likely to become a real thing as AI progresses. I think your assessment of the sun's IQ to be about 25 to be well-reasoned psychological opinion. Plus the video was just plain cool. How often do you get to look at the sun from that distance with eyes that can see UV light? Thanks for humoring my bizarre request. :-) Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 18:19:18 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:19:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] split brain Message-ID: Ya know, I went back and looked at some of the data on split brains and found out what my problem is: I am in my right mind. bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 18:26:29 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 12:26:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science In-Reply-To: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: stuart wrote ; wanted to see how you tried to distinguish signs of intelligence/consciousness in something very much larger than you were. In something so very different than a human being, what constitutes intelligent behavior and what constitutes merely complex behavior might be hard to distinguish. I object to your use of the word 'merely'. In fact I do a lot of thinking about DNA. Hard to find more complex behavior than that. Sometimes I think of it as having a purpose - teleology. Does it know what it is doing; is it trying to make something better?; or is it merely chemistry? But what are we at base - merely chemistry? bill w On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 12:10 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > BillW wrote: > > > Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to 'get it'. What with my > > heat tolerance being so low, I did not try to get close enough to the > > subject to perform the test, so I have to say it's untestable. Since it > > is doing what it designed to do perfectly, then I have to say, given its > > very limited behavior range, it's like a person with an IQ of 25 who can > > bag groceries very adequately. Perhaps that person has Down's Syndrome. > > They have a reputation for having a sunny personality. > > So what should I be getting out of this? > > You had earlier wrote: > "Consciousness is a physical reality with which you can do experiments > with testable hypotheses." > > I wanted to see how you tried to distinguish signs of > intelligence/consciousness in something very much larger than you were. In > something so very different than a human being, what constitutes > intelligent behavior and what constitutes merely complex behavior might be > hard to distinguish. > > Xenopsychology is likely to become a real thing as AI progresses. > > I think your assessment of the sun's IQ to be about 25 to be well-reasoned > psychological opinion. > > Plus the video was just plain cool. How often do you get to look at the > sun from that distance with eyes that can see UV light? > > Thanks for humoring my bizarre request. :-) > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 19:09:33 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 13:09:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: >IQ of 25 that can bag groceries An IQ of 25 would be 5 standard deviations below average, and likely would render someone unable to do something even as basic as bagging groceries, because of lack of ability to handle novel situations (such as new package designs, etc). Most individuals in this realm of IQ have suck profound disability that that cannot be trusted to go to the bathroom alone, and most cannot speak or walk. ?Individuals with profound mental retardation are unable to work, live alone or care for themselves.? ?A large portion of these individuals live in highly supervised homes and receive assistance for their basic needs, such as eating, bathing and getting dressed. Even when a person with profound retardation lives at home with family, they often require the help of a nurse or other specialist.? https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/profound-mental-retardation/ ?These individuals cannot live independently, and they require close supervision and help with self-care activities. They have very limited ability to communicate and often have physical limitations.? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332877/ Since the average IQ for Downs is between 50 and 70, an IQ of 25 is a very significant impairment and would likely prevent the bagging of groceries. However, you know, I don?t detect ?any behavior? from the sun. It for example will not answer any IQ questions, giving it a score of 0 because the IQ test requires human-centric verbal and spacial abilities. The human bias would likely render the test unusable with anything which is not ?human-like?. SR Ballard > On Nov 12, 2018, at 11:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. > > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think > > its IQ is and why: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 > > > > Stuart LaForge > > Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to 'get it'. What with my heat tolerance being so low, I did not try to get close enough to the subject to perform the test, so I have to say it's untestable. Since it is doing what it designed to do perfectly, then I have to say, given its very limited behavior range, it's like a person with an IQ of 25 who can bag groceries very adequately. Perhaps that person has Down's Syndrome. They have a reputation for having a sunny personality. > > So what should I be getting out of this? > > bill w > > > >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >> Billw wrote: >> >> > (will get back to you on the attached video tomorrow) bill w >> >> Ok. Feel free to watch it sped up by 2x. You can do that from the options >> menu. >> Just be warned, it makes the subject appear somewhat menacing. ;-) >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at >> > 5:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >> > >> > >> > Bill Wallace wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand >> >> these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math >> >> another, I'll go with reality. >> > >> > But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a >> > relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a honeybee >> > can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. >> > >> > Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as >> > well. >> > >> > Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you >> > notice to that which has been important to your survival. This is >> > demonstrated by such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other well >> > documented effects. >> > >> > Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering >> > data by doing experiments will certainly help as would careful statistical >> > analysis of the data and good data storage. >> > >> >> Consciousness is a physical reality with >> >> which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. >> > >> > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. >> > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think >> > its IQ is and why: >> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 >> > >> > >> > Stuart LaForge >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Mon Nov 12 20:11:40 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:11:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I took graduate classes in Mental Retardation and worked with them in the nearby hospital, so I think I do know what they can do, though it is true that most of the Down's Syndrome people you see on TV and as baggers are outliers in their populations, some near normal range. IQ 25 is the average for Down's disease (should not be called syndrome, since that word means that we don't know what is causing it, which we do - trisomy of chromosome 21 - ditto for AIDS, which should now be called HIV infection) Speaking of tri-, I remember a question on Trivial Pursuit about a triorchid goat. As if goats weren't bad enough. bill w On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >IQ of 25 that can bag groceries > > An IQ of 25 would be 5 standard deviations below average, and likely would > render someone unable to do something even as basic as bagging groceries, > because of lack of ability to handle novel situations (such as new package > designs, etc). Most individuals in this realm of IQ have suck profound > disability that that cannot be trusted to go to the bathroom alone, and > most cannot speak or walk. > > ?Individuals with profound mental retardation are unable to work, live > alone or care for themselves.? > > ?A large portion of these individuals live in highly supervised homes and > receive assistance for their basic needs, such as eating, bathing and > getting dressed. Even when a person with profound retardation lives at home > with family, they often require the help of a nurse or other specialist.? > > https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/profound-mental-retardation/ > > ?These individuals cannot live independently, and they require close > supervision and help with self-care activities. They have very limited > ability to communicate and often have physical limitations.? > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332877/ > > Since the average IQ for Downs is between 50 and 70, an IQ of 25 is a very > significant impairment and would likely prevent the bagging of groceries. > > However, you know, I don?t detect ?any behavior? from the sun. It for > example will not answer any IQ questions, giving it a score of 0 because > the IQ test requires human-centric verbal and spacial abilities. The human > bias would likely render the test unusable with anything which is not > ?human-like?. > > SR Ballard > > On Nov 12, 2018, at 11:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. > > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you > think > > its IQ is and why: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 > > > > Stuart LaForge > > Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to 'get it'. What with my > heat tolerance being so low, I did not try to get close enough to the > subject to perform the test, so I have to say it's untestable. Since it is > doing what it designed to do perfectly, then I have to say, given its very > limited behavior range, it's like a person with an IQ of 25 who can bag > groceries very adequately. Perhaps that person has Down's Syndrome. They > have a reputation for having a sunny personality. > > So what should I be getting out of this? > > bill w > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > >> Billw wrote: >> >> > (will get back to you on the attached video tomorrow) bill w >> >> Ok. Feel free to watch it sped up by 2x. You can do that from the options >> menu. >> Just be warned, it makes the subject appear somewhat menacing. ;-) >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at >> > 5:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >> > >> > >> > Bill Wallace wrote: >> > >> > >> >> I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand >> >> these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math >> >> another, I'll go with reality. >> > >> > But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a >> > relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a >> honeybee >> > can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. >> > >> > Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as >> > well. >> > >> > Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you >> > notice to that which has been important to your survival. This is >> > demonstrated by such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other >> well >> > documented effects. >> > >> > Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering >> > data by doing experiments will certainly help as would careful >> statistical >> > analysis of the data and good data storage. >> > >> >> Consciousness is a physical reality with >> >> which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. >> > >> > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. >> > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you >> think >> > its IQ is and why: >> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 >> > >> > >> > Stuart LaForge >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 21:26:40 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 15:26:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> Can you give me a source for average IQ for Downs? What I found was this (which is quoted everywhere): average IQ for downs is 50-60 (sorry that I wrote 70 earlier) Mosby?s Medical Dictionary p560 > On Nov 12, 2018, at 2:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I took graduate classes in Mental Retardation and worked with them in the nearby hospital, so I think I do know what they can do, though it is true that most of the Down's Syndrome people you see on TV and as baggers are outliers in their populations, some near normal range. IQ 25 is the average for Down's disease (should not be called syndrome, since that word means that we don't know what is causing it, which we do - trisomy of chromosome 21 - ditto for AIDS, which should now be called HIV infection) Speaking of tri-, I remember a question on Trivial Pursuit about a triorchid goat. As if goats weren't bad enough. > > bill w > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >IQ of 25 that can bag groceries >> >> An IQ of 25 would be 5 standard deviations below average, and likely would render someone unable to do something even as basic as bagging groceries, because of lack of ability to handle novel situations (such as new package designs, etc). Most individuals in this realm of IQ have suck profound disability that that cannot be trusted to go to the bathroom alone, and most cannot speak or walk. >> >> ?Individuals with profound mental retardation are unable to work, live alone or care for themselves.? >> >> ?A large portion of these individuals live in highly supervised homes and receive assistance for their basic needs, such as eating, bathing and getting dressed. Even when a person with profound retardation lives at home with family, they often require the help of a nurse or other specialist.? >> >> https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/profound-mental-retardation/ >> >> ?These individuals cannot live independently, and they require close supervision and help with self-care activities. They have very limited ability to communicate and often have physical limitations.? >> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332877/ >> >> Since the average IQ for Downs is between 50 and 70, an IQ of 25 is a very significant impairment and would likely prevent the bagging of groceries. >> >> However, you know, I don?t detect ?any behavior? from the sun. It for example will not answer any IQ questions, giving it a score of 0 because the IQ test requires human-centric verbal and spacial abilities. The human bias would likely render the test unusable with anything which is not ?human-like?. >> >> SR Ballard >> >>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 11:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. >>> > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think >>> > its IQ is and why: >>> > >>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 >>> > >>> > Stuart LaForge >>> >>> Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to 'get it'. What with my heat tolerance being so low, I did not try to get close enough to the subject to perform the test, so I have to say it's untestable. Since it is doing what it designed to do perfectly, then I have to say, given its very limited behavior range, it's like a person with an IQ of 25 who can bag groceries very adequately. Perhaps that person has Down's Syndrome. They have a reputation for having a sunny personality. >>> >>> So what should I be getting out of this? >>> >>> bill w >>> > >>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >>>> Billw wrote: >>>> >>>> > (will get back to you on the attached video tomorrow) bill w >>>> >>>> Ok. Feel free to watch it sped up by 2x. You can do that from the options >>>> menu. >>>> Just be warned, it makes the subject appear somewhat menacing. ;-) >>>> >>>> Stuart LaForge >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at >>>> > 5:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Bill Wallace wrote: >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >> I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand >>>> >> these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math >>>> >> another, I'll go with reality. >>>> > >>>> > But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a >>>> > relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a honeybee >>>> > can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. >>>> > >>>> > Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as >>>> > well. >>>> > >>>> > Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you >>>> > notice to that which has been important to your survival. This is >>>> > demonstrated by such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other well >>>> > documented effects. >>>> > >>>> > Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering >>>> > data by doing experiments will certainly help as would careful statistical >>>> > analysis of the data and good data storage. >>>> > >>>> >> Consciousness is a physical reality with >>>> >> which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. >>>> > >>>> > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. >>>> > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you think >>>> > its IQ is and why: >>>> > >>>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Stuart LaForge >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Stuart LaForge >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 avant at sollegro.com Mon Nov 12 22:02:38 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 14:02:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Memes and ghods Message-ID: Keith Henson wrote: > I originated a few memes. More than just a few. You should post more often. Incidentally, I met some guys out here in Nevada when I first moved here about 10 years ago who said they knew of you by your battles with Co$. I can't remember their names but they were a father and son squatting at an empty gold mine that the federal government had shut down. > There are a few ideas I had that I didn't spread out as memes because > I thought they were not good. Won't mention them here. I agree. Let the bad guys do their own homework. > The "world as a simulation" meme I didn't originate, but I was a link > (as was Hans Moravec) in it becoming a cottage industry in philosophy > departments. The story was discussed on this list in the early 2000s. I didn't take it very seriously back then. It wasn't until I derived the causal closure of the Hubble volume a few months back that I started to take it more seriously. Our causal cell is finite and that suggests either a multiverse or a simulation. > Oh, how the character of this list has changed. In the early days, it > was more about us becoming gods or at least entities with what was > considered godlike powers through nanotech. I think it could be summed up > as "There are no gods--yet." Well you know what they say about the future not being what it used to be. Setbacks like 9/11 and the Great Recession happen and the ship of history gets blown off course from time to time. But take heart for so long as the ship is afloat, we still have a chance to reach port. Besides godhood is relative, not absolute. Relative to 90% of the species on this planet we effectively are gods. Just rather careless ones. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 23:08:45 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:08:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> Message-ID: I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? bill w On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM SR Ballard wrote: > Can you give me a source for average IQ for Downs? > > What I found was this (which is quoted everywhere): average IQ for downs > is 50-60 (sorry that I wrote 70 earlier) > > Mosby?s Medical Dictionary p560 > > > On Nov 12, 2018, at 2:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > I took graduate classes in Mental Retardation and worked with them in the > nearby hospital, so I think I do know what they can do, though it is true > that most of the Down's Syndrome people you see on TV and as baggers are > outliers in their populations, some near normal range. IQ 25 is the > average for Down's disease (should not be called syndrome, since that word > means that we don't know what is causing it, which we do - trisomy of > chromosome 21 - ditto for AIDS, which should now be called HIV infection) > Speaking of tri-, I remember a question on Trivial Pursuit about a > triorchid goat. As if goats weren't bad enough. > > bill w > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> >IQ of 25 that can bag groceries >> >> An IQ of 25 would be 5 standard deviations below average, and likely >> would render someone unable to do something even as basic as bagging >> groceries, because of lack of ability to handle novel situations (such as >> new package designs, etc). Most individuals in this realm of IQ have suck >> profound disability that that cannot be trusted to go to the bathroom >> alone, and most cannot speak or walk. >> >> ?Individuals with profound mental retardation are unable to work, live >> alone or care for themselves.? >> >> ?A large portion of these individuals live in highly supervised homes and >> receive assistance for their basic needs, such as eating, bathing and >> getting dressed. Even when a person with profound retardation lives at home >> with family, they often require the help of a nurse or other specialist.? >> >> https://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/profound-mental-retardation/ >> >> ?These individuals cannot live independently, and they require close >> supervision and help with self-care activities. They have very limited >> ability to communicate and often have physical limitations.? >> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332877/ >> >> Since the average IQ for Downs is between 50 and 70, an IQ of 25 is a >> very significant impairment and would likely prevent the bagging of >> groceries. >> >> However, you know, I don?t detect ?any behavior? from the sun. It for >> example will not answer any IQ questions, giving it a score of 0 because >> the IQ test requires human-centric verbal and spacial abilities. The human >> bias would likely render the test unusable with anything which is not >> ?human-like?. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> On Nov 12, 2018, at 11:06 AM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. >> > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you >> think >> > its IQ is and why: >> > >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 >> > >> > Stuart LaForge >> >> Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to 'get it'. What with my >> heat tolerance being so low, I did not try to get close enough to the >> subject to perform the test, so I have to say it's untestable. Since it is >> doing what it designed to do perfectly, then I have to say, given its very >> limited behavior range, it's like a person with an IQ of 25 who can bag >> groceries very adequately. Perhaps that person has Down's Syndrome. They >> have a reputation for having a sunny personality. >> >> So what should I be getting out of this? >> >> bill w >> > >> >> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:11 PM Stuart LaForge >> wrote: >> >>> Billw wrote: >>> >>> > (will get back to you on the attached video tomorrow) bill w >>> >>> Ok. Feel free to watch it sped up by 2x. You can do that from the options >>> menu. >>> Just be warned, it makes the subject appear somewhat menacing. ;-) >>> >>> Stuart LaForge >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at >>> > 5:18 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Bill Wallace wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >> I obviously don't have the math or philosophy background to understand >>> >> these things, but if reality shows me one thing and logic and math >>> >> another, I'll go with reality. >>> > >>> > But you are limited in your senses and can only directly sense a >>> > relatively small slice of reality. You cannot see UV light but a >>> honeybee >>> > can. Reality looks very different to a honeybee than it does to you. >>> > >>> > Furthermore, you are not only limited by senses but by your brain as >>> > well. >>> > >>> > Your brain cannot process everything at once so it filters what you >>> > notice to that which has been important to your survival. This is >>> > demonstrated by such things as the Inattentional Blindness and other >>> well >>> > documented effects. >>> > >>> > Through technology, you can extend the range your senses yes. Gathering >>> > data by doing experiments will certainly help as would careful >>> statistical >>> > analysis of the data and good data storage. >>> > >>> >> Consciousness is a physical reality with >>> >> which you can do experiments with testable hypotheses. >>> > >>> > Ok, here is time-lapse video footage of your test subject Mr. >>> > Psychologist. Watch its behavior and then get back to me on what you >>> think >>> > its IQ is and why: >>> > >>> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 >>> > >>> > >>> > Stuart LaForge >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > | | Virus-free. www.avast.com | >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> Stuart LaForge >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 23:56:46 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:56:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? > > bill w Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent is, I?m not so sure. And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, but considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... that there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my questions readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I love learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my life. It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at parties. I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as you should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will instead list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals and ?odd? numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body temperature in Fahrenheit. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Nov 12 23:56:50 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:56:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science In-Reply-To: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:11 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: *> I wanted to see how you tried to distinguish signs > of intelligence/consciousness in something very much larger than you were. > In something so very different than a human being, what > constitutes intelligent behavior and what constitutes merely complex > behavior might be hard to distinguish.* I don't think it would be hard to distinguish. If something is enormously complex but not intelligent we should have some idea of what its going to do next at least probabilistically, the weather would be a example of that; but if something is not just complex but is also far more intelligent that we are then we couldn't predict what it will do even approximately, but after the fact we could see a pattern in its activities that didn't look random. There is nothing in nature that is known to behave that way. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 00:29:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:29:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> Message-ID: And it's a shame that so few states provide a level of quality education, with special student Master's level education for the teachers. No surprise that life expectancy is better than the 70s. But many were better off in an institution. Most people can't realize just how much time and expertise it takes to raise a mentally retarded person, much less the costs, and much less having to keep them at home for their lifespan. Few could be left home alone. Parent can get really frustrated with having a child, in effect, living in their home all their lives. Parents who do this are saints, devoting most of their time to this. When presented with these facts, many parents choose to abort after the amniocentesis shows Down's. Extremely controversial issue, of course. Privacy laws went into effect long ago. In my time you could stroll through a hospital for the MR and peruse the hydrocephalics and all. In fact, I think the average person would be stunned. George Wallace's wife, then governor, went to Partlow (in Tuscaloosa) and came out crying on TV and vowed to go to Montgomery and put through bills for a lot more money for the MR and mentally ill, but with George Wallace pulling the strings, it never happened. I'll bet most people would come out like Lurleen Wallace did and have great compassion for the people who had to live and work in those environments. But whoever ran a political campaign mentioning money for these people and the staffs? Expert help is needed, but rarely provided. When I worked in the Mississippi state mental hospital (for $200 a month plus room and board, cooked by the inmates) you could get a job there with a 2nd grade education. Seriously. Keep in mind that the MR make up more than 3% of the overall population, and mental patients add much more to that, and you can see the level of money needed to provide adequate care. Given how many people are affected by having these people in their families, one would think that there would be effective lobbies. bill w On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years > in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts > that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really > stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning > about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - > percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER > reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a > statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? > > bill w > > > Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to > de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive > family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have > increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law > (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving > education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent > is, I?m not so sure. > > And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, but > considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... that > there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my questions > readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I love > learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my life. > It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at > parties. > > I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as you > should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will instead > list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals and ?odd? > numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body > temperature in Fahrenheit. > > SR Ballard > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Nov 13 00:44:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 18:44:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science In-Reply-To: References: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: but if something is not just complex but is also far more intelligent that we are then we couldn't predict what it will do even approximately, but after the fact we could see a pattern in its activities that didn't look random. There is nothing in nature that is known to behave that way. John K Clark Well, yes, to your last sentence, as we have found no creatures smarter. But even the behavior of an extremely intelligent creature or AI will show reliable patterns, and from those we will have some predictive ability. If random patterns, them I would argue that there is no intelligent behavior there. Depends on the questions we are asking, of course. bill w On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:13 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 1:11 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > *> I wanted to see how you tried to distinguish signs >> of intelligence/consciousness in something very much larger than you were. >> In something so very different than a human being, what >> constitutes intelligent behavior and what constitutes merely complex >> behavior might be hard to distinguish.* > > > I don't think it would be hard to distinguish. If something is enormously > complex but not intelligent we should have some idea of what its going to > do next at least probabilistically, the weather would be a example of that; > but if something is not just complex but is also far more intelligent that > we are then we couldn't predict what it will do even approximately, but > after the fact we could see a pattern in its activities that didn't look > random. There is nothing in nature that is known to behave that way. > > 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 Tue Nov 13 01:39:04 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:39:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science In-Reply-To: References: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:49 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > *even the behavior of an extremely intelligent creature or AI will show > reliable patterns, and from those we will have some predictive ability. * > Not necessarily. If you're playing chess with a brilliant chess AI you won't be able to predict what its next move will be, if you could you'd be as good at chess at it is and you're not, but after it made its move you can easily see that it wasn't random and was in fact pretty damn smart. You can't predict what Stephen King's next novel will be but when it come out and you read it you can be pretty sure it was not made by a monkey banging on a keyboard. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 05:45:56 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2018 23:45:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> Message-ID: <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> I?m quite inclined to agree with you on all counts here. If I knew that my child would have issues such as Downs, micro encephalitis, hydro encephalitis, etc, I would not keep the child. Whether that meant getting an elective, or giving up for adoption. To be honest, I?m not sure I?ll have biological children anyway. Firstly, while I do have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ, I had very difficult emotional disconnection growing up. Until 16 I thought there were only 3/4 emotions and all the rest were figures of speech. I could not read facial expressions almost at all until I taught myself using some online resources meant to teach micro-expressions and lie detection. I am quite bad with faces, to be point I have on occasion not recognized my own parents (for example after they get a haircut, etc). The real Turing point for me was reading a book on NLD (Non-verbal Learning Disorder) written by a mother and her son who had the condition. I have never identified with anyone in my life more than the boy in that book. We experienced so many of the same struggles and many of the stories she told about him could have just been straight out of my own life. I believe it is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Bridging-Gap-Nonverbal-Learning-Disorder-ebook/dp/B001NMQZH6 In each of the chapters, she coaches parents through a different type of situation they might face, and how to explain it to their child in a way that will make sense. Reading those explanations was just... so profound and explained so much. I literally cannot explain how much this book really changed my life (as lame as that may sound). Additionally, for about 12 years I suffered with mental health issues, which have just recently let up. I have spent enough time in psych hospital to know exactly what you mean when it comes to budgeting issues. These issues are quite sever and run in the family. For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her jobs. But probably, the bigger reason I probably won?t have kids is because I?m terribly introverted (quite content to never leave the house) and frankly, I scare most of the guys I date. Not that I have anything against eternal bachelorhood. It has it?s perks. But I do wonder, somewhat, why there isn?t a more effective voting bloc for Downs or MR in general. I understand why mental health doesn?t, as the stigma is still quite intense in some regions, cultures, or religious groups in the US. But it seems to be making a bit of progress. Out where my mother lives, she used to do volunteer education services teaching people that mental health issues were not caused by either Sin or Demons. It?s still a very real belief in some parts of the US, unfortunately. SR Ballard > On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > And it's a shame that so few states provide a level of quality education, with special student Master's level education for the teachers. No surprise that life expectancy is better than the 70s. But many were better off in an institution. Most people can't realize just how much time and expertise it takes to raise a mentally retarded person, much less the costs, and much less having to keep them at home for their lifespan. Few could be left home alone. Parent can get really frustrated with having a child, in effect, living in their home all their lives. Parents who do this are saints, devoting most of their time to this. > > When presented with these facts, many parents choose to abort after the amniocentesis shows Down's. Extremely controversial issue, of course. > > Privacy laws went into effect long ago. In my time you could stroll through a hospital for the MR and peruse the hydrocephalics and all. In fact, I think the average person would be stunned. George Wallace's wife, then governor, went to Partlow (in Tuscaloosa) and came out crying on TV and vowed to go to Montgomery and put through bills for a lot more money for the MR and mentally ill, but with George Wallace pulling the strings, it never happened. I'll bet most people would come out like Lurleen Wallace did and have great compassion for the people who had to live and work in those environments. But whoever ran a political campaign mentioning money for these people and the staffs? Expert help is needed, but rarely provided. When I worked in the Mississippi state mental hospital (for $200 a month plus room and board, cooked by the inmates) you could get a job there with a 2nd grade education. Seriously. > > Keep in mind that the MR make up more than 3% of the overall population, and mental patients add much more to that, and you can see the level of money needed to provide adequate care. Given how many people are affected by having these people in their families, one would think that there would be effective lobbies. > > bill w > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? >>> >>> bill w >> >> Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent is, I?m not so sure. >> >> And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, but considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... that there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my questions readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I love learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my life. It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at parties. >> >> I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as you should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will instead list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals and ?odd? numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body temperature in Fahrenheit. >> >> SR Ballard >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 13 15:28:23 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 07:28:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! Message-ID: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> Remember hashing this out about 5 yrs ago? https://nypost.com/2018/11/12/self-driving-vehicles-will-lead-to-more-car-se x-study/ {8^D Well what the heck else are you going to do with all that extra time? You can't go anywhere, and a lotta people can't read in a moving car or even watch a video, and it doesn't take all that long to eat a meal, and a typical commute in from the central valley to the cool stuff around Palo Alto is about an hour and a half, so. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 15:46:21 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:46:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes Message-ID: Dubai is going to put these vehicles on the streets for police to use. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/11/12/hoverbikes-tested-dubai-police-deployment/1974826002/ bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 15:51:14 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:51:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] usa wrong about blood pressure = study Message-ID: https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2018/11/12/brits-contradict-u-s-experts-about-blood-pressure-treatment/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=07531768cd-MC_D_2018-11-13%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-07531768cd-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-07531768cd-214968749&mc_cid=07531768cd&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 16:18:01 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:18:01 +0000 Subject: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! In-Reply-To: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> References: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 15:35, spike wrote: > > Remember hashing this out about 5 yrs ago? > > https://nypost.com/2018/11/12/self-driving-vehicles-will-lead-to-more-car-sex-study/ > > Well what the heck else are you going to do with all that extra time? You can?t go anywhere, and a lotta people can?t read in a moving car or even watch a video, and it doesn?t take all that long to eat a meal, and a typical commute in from the central valley to the cool stuff around Palo Alto is about an hour and a half, so? > One snag that I don't remember discussing ---- Quote: My PhD research suggests we?ll never be as comfortable or productive as these visions portray without finding a way to combat motion sickness. ------------- So you'll both have to look out the window to try control queasiness! :) BillK From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 13 16:54:51 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 08:54:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009401d47b71$98ba15c0$ca2e4140$@rainier66.com> Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes Dubai is going to put these vehicles on the streets for police to use. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/11/12/hoverbikes-tested-dubai-police-deployment/1974826002/ bill Bill there are some things the article fails to mention but are important. With these hoverbikes, their service ceiling is about 3 to 5 meters above the ground usually and can only hold and altitude above about a meter for a minute or two. This might be enough for the constables to use for some purposes, but unfortunately we still can?t carry enough power to fly with them, even assuming we work out the control problems. Control gets waaaay harder to do once you get higher than a coupla meters off the ground. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 13 17:14:10 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 09:14:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! In-Reply-To: References: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00b001d47b74$4b897770$e29c6650$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 8:18 AM To: Extropy Chat Subject: Re: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 15:35, spike wrote: > > Remember hashing this out about 5 yrs ago? > > https://nypost.com/2018/11/12/self-driving-vehicles-will-lead-to-more- > car-sex-study/ > > Well what the heck else are you going to do with all that extra time? > You can?t go anywhere, and a lotta people can?t read in a moving car > or even watch a video, and it doesn?t take all that long to eat a > meal, and a typical commute in from the central valley to the cool > stuff around Palo Alto is about an hour and a half, so? > One snag that I don't remember discussing ---- Quote: My PhD research suggests we?ll never be as comfortable or productive as these visions portray without finding a way to combat motion sickness. ------------- So you'll both have to look out the window to try control queasiness! :) BillK _______________________________________________ Eh, entirely possible with some people, but... this too may help a particular class of harlot: those who don't get motion sickness. I was on a cruise with a dozen friends and noticed great variation in the impact of rough seas. We had one friend turning green with every pitch and roll, but I scarcely noticed and never once experienced even mild motion sickness. I have been on some pretty wild plane rides where I looked around and noticed I was the only one eating. {8^D I'm lucky that way. The notion of Meals on Wheels would reduce the harlot's overhead. She (or he) need not provide the "office" since the customer does that. She (or he (xe)) could make a fine living at 2/3 the price and still be a preferable deal for plenty of customers, since it carries the benefit of additional safety (the customer doesn't need to go into that part of town) and additional privacy (because anybody could be (and probably is) making video of who is visiting that part of town.) A customer could have something as simple as a self-driving version of a Toyota Sienna, which isn't that different from a sedan but is big enough to put a bed back there behind the passenger seat. Since that is about the most generic vehicle on the road, the local rising executive who really doesn't have time for romance could pick up a harlot on his way to or from work, and no one would know who hired her or him or xim. Privacy! Then variations on a theme can be imagined: a harlot with her or his or xis own self-driving vehicle, which has its advantages as well. Regarding motion sickness: it can be imagined that a self-driver can be written to be a patient driver: its accelerations and decelerations can be milder, and there is none of that impatient switching lanes we carbon units do. I am coming from the viewpoint of one who lives next to a Silicon Valley interstate freeway, where the speed is seldom very high, so a lot of driving motion is pretty mild. spike From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 17:58:16 2018 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Mechado (CI)) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:58:16 -0200 Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93707e69-9614-c7a2-f0a8-7ea5a4cedbdf@gmail.com> You say hoverbike, I say flying scissors of instant decapitation From sparge at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 18:18:30 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:18:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! In-Reply-To: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> References: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Here's a blog article about it: https://ideas.4brad.com/sex-your-robotaxi On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:33 AM wrote: > > > Remember hashing this out about 5 yrs ago? > > > > > https://nypost.com/2018/11/12/self-driving-vehicles-will-lead-to-more-car-sex-study/ > > > > {8^D > > > > Well what the heck else are you going to do with all that extra time? You > can?t go anywhere, and a lotta people can?t read in a moving car or even > watch a video, and it doesn?t take all that long to eat a meal, and a > typical commute in from the central valley to the cool stuff around Palo > Alto is about an hour and a half, so? > > > > 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 Tue Nov 13 18:53:31 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:53:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes In-Reply-To: <009401d47b71$98ba15c0$ca2e4140$@rainier66.com> References: <009401d47b71$98ba15c0$ca2e4140$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike, not funny, but I can see a guy hitting the wrong button or a glitch in the software or something, two jets suddenly go amok and turn the thing downside up and the guy gets a quick trip to the ground. Do you know how these are powered? Would you get on one? bill w On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:59 AM wrote: > > > > > > *Subject:* [ExI] hoverbikes > > > > Dubai is going to put these vehicles on the streets for police to use. > > > > > https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/11/12/hoverbikes-tested-dubai-police-deployment/1974826002/ > > > > bill > > > > > > Bill there are some things the article fails to mention but are important. > > > > With these hoverbikes, their service ceiling is about 3 to 5 meters above > the ground usually and can only hold and altitude above about a meter for a > minute or two. This might be enough for the constables to use for some > purposes, but unfortunately we still can?t carry enough power to fly with > them, even assuming we work out the control problems. Control gets waaaay > harder to do once you get higher than a coupla meters off the ground. > > > > 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 Tue Nov 13 18:57:04 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 12:57:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! In-Reply-To: <00b001d47b74$4b897770$e29c6650$@rainier66.com> References: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> <00b001d47b74$4b897770$e29c6650$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I don't know about the motion sickness. Is it like those people who can't read in a car because it makes them dizzy? Is it worse for some because they are not in control of the vehicle? bill w On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:19 AM wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > BillK > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 8:18 AM > To: Extropy Chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! > > On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 15:35, spike wrote: > > > > Remember hashing this out about 5 yrs ago? > > > > https://nypost.com/2018/11/12/self-driving-vehicles-will-lead-to-more- > > car-sex-study/ > > > > Well what the heck else are you going to do with all that extra time? > > You can?t go anywhere, and a lotta people can?t read in a moving car > > or even watch a video, and it doesn?t take all that long to eat a > > meal, and a typical commute in from the central valley to the cool > > stuff around Palo Alto is about an hour and a half, so? > > > > One snag that I don't remember discussing ---- < > https://theconversation.com/driverless-cars-will-make-you-sick-but-theres-a-fix-106646 > > > > Quote: > My PhD research suggests we?ll never be as comfortable or productive as > these visions portray without finding a way to combat motion sickness. > ------------- > > So you'll both have to look out the window to try control queasiness! > :) > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > > Eh, entirely possible with some people, but... this too may help a > particular class of harlot: those who don't get motion sickness. > > I was on a cruise with a dozen friends and noticed great variation in the > impact of rough seas. We had one friend turning green with every pitch and > roll, but I scarcely noticed and never once experienced even mild motion > sickness. I have been on some pretty wild plane rides where I looked > around and noticed I was the only one eating. {8^D I'm lucky that way. > > The notion of Meals on Wheels would reduce the harlot's overhead. She (or > he) need not provide the "office" since the customer does that. She (or he > (xe)) could make a fine living at 2/3 the price and still be a preferable > deal for plenty of customers, since it carries the benefit of additional > safety (the customer doesn't need to go into that part of town) and > additional privacy (because anybody could be (and probably is) making video > of who is visiting that part of town.) A customer could have something as > simple as a self-driving version of a Toyota Sienna, which isn't that > different from a sedan but is big enough to put a bed back there behind the > passenger seat. Since that is about the most generic vehicle on the road, > the local rising executive who really doesn't have time for romance could > pick up a harlot on his way to or from work, and no one would know who > hired her or him or xim. Privacy! > > Then variations on a theme can be imagined: a harlot with her or his or > xis own self-driving vehicle, which has its advantages as well. > > Regarding motion sickness: it can be imagined that a self-driver can be > written to be a patient driver: its accelerations and decelerations can be > milder, and there is none of that impatient switching lanes we carbon units > do. > > I am coming from the viewpoint of one who lives next to a Silicon Valley > interstate freeway, where the speed is seldom very high, so a lot of > driving motion is pretty mild. > > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 19:17:36 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:17:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] usa wrong about blood pressure = study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2E25F28C-C411-470B-AA7C-986A7165F1C8@gmail.com> Somehow I?m not surprised that American drug lobby managed to get millions to take medication that was not medically necessary. SR Ballard > On Nov 13, 2018, at 9:51 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2018/11/12/brits-contradict-u-s-experts-about-blood-pressure-treatment/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=07531768cd-MC_D_2018-11-13%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-07531768cd-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-07531768cd-214968749&mc_cid=07531768cd&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 13 19:20:33 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 11:20:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes In-Reply-To: References: <009401d47b71$98ba15c0$ca2e4140$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004201d47b85$f32fcd10$d98f6730$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 10:54 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] hoverbikes >?Spike, not funny, but I can see a guy hitting the wrong button? The attitude control is automated. Humans aren?t fast enough and flawless enough for that task. >?or a glitch in the software or something? A software error? Impossible! heh >?two jets suddenly go amok and turn the thing downside up and the guy gets a quick trip to the ground? That is not the only reason these things are limited to ground use. It takes a lot more power to fly than to hover. The original version of this had ducted fans, but I see this version has whirling blades right out there clawing at the wind (and anything else available which needs chopping off (hey cool, flying hedge trimmer!)) >?Do you know how these are powered? Lithium battery, standard electric motor. Scaled up version of a quad rotor. >?Would you get on one? bill w Get on one, ja. Actually lift off? I would need to think long and hard, then think not. If I ever got drunk and decided to try it, I would make damn sure I was in a biiiiig open field, nothing anywhere to hit. The thing that would spook me is the obvious challenges if the control system did get confused and you saw you were going to crash. Ducted fans add weight but there is a reason to go that route. OK then, four choices, which blade would you choose to whack your damn head off? spike On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:59 AM > wrote: Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes Dubai is going to put these vehicles on the streets for police to use. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nation-now/2018/11/12/hoverbikes-tested-dubai-police-deployment/1974826002/ bill Bill there are some things the article fails to mention but are important. With these hoverbikes, their service ceiling is about 3 to 5 meters above the ground usually and can only hold and altitude above about a meter for a minute or two. This might be enough for the constables to use for some purposes, but unfortunately we still can?t carry enough power to fly with them, even assuming we work out the control problems. Control gets waaaay harder to do once you get higher than a coupla meters off the ground. 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 Tue Nov 13 19:22:29 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:22:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> Message-ID: For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her jobs. That reminds me of one of the uglier aspects of working in a mental hospital - harassment by the staff. Once we had a patient with catatonia and he exhibited waxy flexibility. So the staff would put his arms and/or legs into a certain position and he would hold it just like that. Then another position, etc. Sadly, the patient knew exactly what they were doing and that they were laughing at him the whole time, and it made him hostile. I also saw a guy punched. All of the above happened when I was just an aide. Aides would never do any of this stuff around upper staff. Some staff were really cruel. bill w On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:50 PM SR Ballard wrote: > I?m quite inclined to agree with you on all counts here. If I knew that my > child would have issues such as Downs, micro encephalitis, hydro > encephalitis, etc, I would not keep the child. Whether that meant getting > an elective, or giving up for adoption. > > To be honest, I?m not sure I?ll have biological children anyway. Firstly, > while I do have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ, I had very > difficult emotional disconnection growing up. > > Until 16 I thought there were only 3/4 emotions and all the rest were > figures of speech. I could not read facial expressions almost at all until > I taught myself using some online resources meant to teach > micro-expressions and lie detection. I am quite bad with faces, to be point > I have on occasion not recognized my own parents (for example after they > get a haircut, etc). The real Turing point for me was reading a book on NLD > (Non-verbal Learning Disorder) written by a mother and her son who had the > condition. I have never identified with anyone in my life more than the boy > in that book. We experienced so many of the same struggles and many of the > stories she told about him could have just been straight out of my own > life. > > I believe it is this book: > https://www.amazon.com/Bridging-Gap-Nonverbal-Learning-Disorder-ebook/dp/B001NMQZH6 > > In each of the chapters, she coaches parents through a different type of > situation they might face, and how to explain it to their child in a way > that will make sense. Reading those explanations was just... so profound > and explained so much. I literally cannot explain how much this book really > changed my life (as lame as that may sound). > > Additionally, for about 12 years I suffered with mental health issues, > which have just recently let up. I have spent enough time in psych hospital > to know exactly what you mean when it comes to budgeting issues. These > issues are quite sever and run in the family. For example, my mother > suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her > jobs. > > But probably, the bigger reason I probably won?t have kids is because I?m > terribly introverted (quite content to never leave the house) and frankly, > I scare most of the guys I date. Not that I have anything against eternal > bachelorhood. It has it?s perks. > > But I do wonder, somewhat, why there isn?t a more effective voting bloc > for Downs or MR in general. I understand why mental health doesn?t, as the > stigma is still quite intense in some regions, cultures, or religious > groups in the US. But it seems to be making a bit of progress. Out where my > mother lives, she used to do volunteer education services teaching people > that mental health issues were not caused by either Sin or Demons. It?s > still a very real belief in some parts of the US, unfortunately. > > SR Ballard > > On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > And it's a shame that so few states provide a level of quality education, > with special student Master's level education for the teachers. No > surprise that life expectancy is better than the 70s. But many were better > off in an institution. Most people can't realize just how much time and > expertise it takes to raise a mentally retarded person, much less the > costs, and much less having to keep them at home for their lifespan. Few > could be left home alone. Parent can get really frustrated with having a > child, in effect, living in their home all their lives. Parents who do > this are saints, devoting most of their time to this. > > When presented with these facts, many parents choose to abort after the > amniocentesis shows Down's. Extremely controversial issue, of course. > > Privacy laws went into effect long ago. In my time you could stroll > through a hospital for the MR and peruse the hydrocephalics and all. In > fact, I think the average person would be stunned. George Wallace's wife, > then governor, went to Partlow (in Tuscaloosa) and came out crying on TV > and vowed to go to Montgomery and put through bills for a lot more money > for the MR and mentally ill, but with George Wallace pulling the strings, > it never happened. I'll bet most people would come out like Lurleen Wallace > did and have great compassion for the people who had to live and work in > those environments. But whoever ran a political campaign mentioning money > for these people and the staffs? Expert help is needed, but rarely > provided. When I worked in the Mississippi state mental hospital (for $200 > a month plus room and board, cooked by the inmates) you could get a job > there with a 2nd grade education. Seriously. > > Keep in mind that the MR make up more than 3% of the overall population, > and mental patients add much more to that, and you can see the level of > money needed to provide adequate care. Given how many people are affected > by having these people in their families, one would think that there would > be effective lobbies. > > bill w > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> >> >> On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years >> in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts >> that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really >> stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning >> about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - >> percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER >> reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a >> statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? >> >> bill w >> >> >> Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to >> de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive >> family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have >> increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law >> (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving >> education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent >> is, I?m not so sure. >> >> And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, but >> considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... that >> there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my questions >> readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I love >> learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my life. >> It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at >> parties. >> >> I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as >> you should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will >> instead list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals >> and ?odd? numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body >> temperature in Fahrenheit. >> >> SR Ballard >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 19:26:54 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:26:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! In-Reply-To: References: <005c01d47b65$84288b70$8c79a250$@rainier66.com> <00b001d47b74$4b897770$e29c6650$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <8833895F-4991-4290-B51A-4817F8610255@gmail.com> I think ?dizzy? is a very mild way of putting motion sickness. Very dizzy I would maybe accept. The first thing you notice is a discomfort in your stomach and a tiny headache, then you look up from your book and you?re in full blown ?I must vomit? panic. Very fun. I am one of those people who CANNOT read in cars, EXCEPT if I fall asleep and wake up again while the car is still in motion. Curiously, I never have this problem with airplanes (even when other people are doing panicked screaming about turbulence), though I have to take Dramamine before watching action movies. I doubt sex in a moving car would bother me though, as long as it wasn?t something too vigorous. Perhaps Uber-Harlots would just carry some Dramamine in the glove box and offer it to you the say Uber drivers offer you mints. The bigger issue with the Uber-Harlot is that many/most prostitutes like to wash up between clients. This would be complicated by the car, I think. > On Nov 13, 2018, at 12:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I don't know about the motion sickness. Is it like those people who can't read in a car because it makes them dizzy? Is it worse for some because they are not in control of the vehicle? > > bill w > >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:19 AM wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK >> Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2018 8:18 AM >> To: Extropy Chat >> Subject: Re: [ExI] hey they stole our idea! >> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 15:35, spike wrote: >> > >> > Remember hashing this out about 5 yrs ago? >> > >> > https://nypost.com/2018/11/12/self-driving-vehicles-will-lead-to-more- >> > car-sex-study/ >> > >> > Well what the heck else are you going to do with all that extra time? >> > You can?t go anywhere, and a lotta people can?t read in a moving car >> > or even watch a video, and it doesn?t take all that long to eat a >> > meal, and a typical commute in from the central valley to the cool >> > stuff around Palo Alto is about an hour and a half, so? >> > >> >> One snag that I don't remember discussing ---- >> >> Quote: >> My PhD research suggests we?ll never be as comfortable or productive as these visions portray without finding a way to combat motion sickness. >> ------------- >> >> So you'll both have to look out the window to try control queasiness! >> :) >> BillK >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Eh, entirely possible with some people, but... this too may help a particular class of harlot: those who don't get motion sickness. >> >> I was on a cruise with a dozen friends and noticed great variation in the impact of rough seas. We had one friend turning green with every pitch and roll, but I scarcely noticed and never once experienced even mild motion sickness. I have been on some pretty wild plane rides where I looked around and noticed I was the only one eating. {8^D I'm lucky that way. >> >> The notion of Meals on Wheels would reduce the harlot's overhead. She (or he) need not provide the "office" since the customer does that. She (or he (xe)) could make a fine living at 2/3 the price and still be a preferable deal for plenty of customers, since it carries the benefit of additional safety (the customer doesn't need to go into that part of town) and additional privacy (because anybody could be (and probably is) making video of who is visiting that part of town.) A customer could have something as simple as a self-driving version of a Toyota Sienna, which isn't that different from a sedan but is big enough to put a bed back there behind the passenger seat. Since that is about the most generic vehicle on the road, the local rising executive who really doesn't have time for romance could pick up a harlot on his way to or from work, and no one would know who hired her or him or xim. Privacy! >> >> Then variations on a theme can be imagined: a harlot with her or his or xis own self-driving vehicle, which has its advantages as well. >> >> Regarding motion sickness: it can be imagined that a self-driver can be written to be a patient driver: its accelerations and decelerations can be milder, and there is none of that impatient switching lanes we carbon units do. >> >> I am coming from the viewpoint of one who lives next to a Silicon Valley interstate freeway, where the speed is seldom very high, so a lot of driving motion is pretty mild. >> >> spike >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 19:28:36 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:28:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science In-Reply-To: References: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:44 PM John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 7:49 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >> > *even the behavior of an extremely intelligent creature or AI will >> show reliable patterns, and from those we will have some predictive >> ability. * >> > > Not necessarily. If you're playing chess with a brilliant chess AI you > won't be able to predict what its next move will be, if you could you'd be > as good at chess at it is and you're not, but after it made its move you > can easily see that it wasn't random and was in fact pretty damn smart. You > can't predict what Stephen King's next novel will be but when it come out > and you read it you can be pretty sure it was not made by a monkey > banging on a keyboard. > > John K Clark > I disagree strongly with all of that. What you can predict with a great deal of accuracy is the moves the AI won't make, as they would be stupid and self-defeating. In fact, I think you could probably make a list of what it will do and that will contain the next move much of the time. I am assuming that only a few of the moves of the AI are big surprises. As for King, you can predict with almost certainty that he will write a horror story, because that's what he does. You could find out if he writes about the same things, or if each book is different, and that will narrow the choices he will make. Predicting what they won't do isn't as informative as what they will do, but it's not nothing and it's not random. 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 19:35:17 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:35:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Stem_cells_=E2=80=9Cremember=E2=80=9D_past_injur?= =?utf-8?q?ies?= Message-ID: Apparently, by some mechanism, stem cells can ?remember? past injuries. This perhaps explains some inflammation disorders. https://www.quantamagazine.org/stem-cells-remember-tissues-past-injuries-20181112/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 19:37:28 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:37:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] usa wrong about blood pressure = study In-Reply-To: <2E25F28C-C411-470B-AA7C-986A7165F1C8@gmail.com> References: <2E25F28C-C411-470B-AA7C-986A7165F1C8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Physicians are pushing the drugs the drug company pays them to push. I have asked a doctor about changing from naproxen to curcumin (very successfully I will add), and about other supplements, and he knows way less than I do. I know people who are successfully treating their blood pressure with Hawthorne (no, not the books!), and pain with CBD opium extract, depression or anxiety with a multitude of possibilities, stings with papain (meat tenderizer) and I have many other examples of treatment with otc stuff. So ask me! Just about none of these have bad side effects, and some are truly crazy-sounding, like putting soap under your top sheet for leg cramps, and mustard and soy sauce on burns, and many more. (Almost all of which I learned at the People's Pharmacy, whose weekly email I get. Enemies of Big Pharm, big time. Doctorates. bill w On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:23 PM SR Ballard wrote: > Somehow I?m not surprised that American drug lobby managed to get millions > to take medication that was not medically necessary. > > SR Ballard > > On Nov 13, 2018, at 9:51 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2018/11/12/brits-contradict-u-s-experts-about-blood-pressure-treatment/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=07531768cd-MC_D_2018-11-13%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-07531768cd-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-07531768cd-214968749&mc_cid=07531768cd&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 19:48:32 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 14:48:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] puzzle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A clock, with 0 at the 12 o'clock position, counting up to 50 at 6 o'clock, and counting back down to 0 on the other half. Picture: https://imgur.com/a/mb93qDG On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:23 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > 50+ 50 = 0 > 50 + 10 = 40 > 50 - 10 = 40 > 30 + 20 = 50 OR 10 > 10 + 10 = 0 OR 20 > 0 + 100 = 0 > 48 + 4 = 48 OR 44 > > I will send more if needed. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 19:57:04 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 19:57:04 +0000 Subject: [ExI] hoverbikes In-Reply-To: <004201d47b85$f32fcd10$d98f6730$@rainier66.com> References: <009401d47b71$98ba15c0$ca2e4140$@rainier66.com> <004201d47b85$f32fcd10$d98f6730$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 19:36, spike wrote: > > The attitude control is automated. Humans aren?t fast enough and flawless enough for that task. > > The original version of this had ducted fans, but I see this version has whirling blades right out there clawing at the wind (and anything else available which needs chopping off (hey cool, flying hedge trimmer!)) > > The thing that would spook me is the obvious challenges if the control system did get confused and you saw you were going to crash. Ducted fans add weight but there is a reason to go that route. OK then, four choices, which blade would you choose to whack your damn head off? > > You have to wait for the production version. :) Quote: Hoversurf?s chief operating officer, Joseph Segura-Conn, said the vehicle has numerous safety features, including a computer-controlled system for stabilizing the craft and laser scanners for detecting and avoiding obstacles. To help ensure the safety of the rider and of anyone who might get in the way, the company plans to offer extensive training to customers ? and future models will be carried aloft not by propellers but by enclosed fans. ---------------- BillK From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 20:57:29 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 14:57:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] puzzle In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <682EA63A-2823-4FC2-9BC9-5AF3F184082F@gmail.com> That is the worst handwritten 50 I think I have ever seen. And here I was trying to think about a system of math based on base 50 system with no indexation of pos/neg and/or an absolute value system. Occam?s razor I suppose. Suppose in this system 0+100 would be better notated as 0+2(50). I actually kind of enjoyed this exercise. It could also be viewed as distance on the circle from a predetermined location, you can?t get more than 50 away because you?d be off the circle. > On Nov 13, 2018, at 1:48 PM, Will wrote: > > A clock, with 0 at the 12 o'clock position, counting up to 50 at 6 o'clock, and counting back down to 0 on the other half. > > Picture: https://imgur.com/a/mb93qDG > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:23 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> 50+ 50 = 0 >> 50 + 10 = 40 >> 50 - 10 = 40 >> 30 + 20 = 50 OR 10 >> 10 + 10 = 0 OR 20 >> 0 + 100 = 0 >> 48 + 4 = 48 OR 44 >> >> I will send more if needed. >> >> bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 13 21:41:56 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 13:41:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009601d47b99$b33ed840$19bc88c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Science or Scientism? For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her jobs. >?That reminds me of one of the uglier aspects of working in a mental hospital - harassment by the staff? I also saw a guy punched. All of the above happened when I was just an aide?bill w BillW, I worked as a temporary fill-in aide at an Alzheimer?s facility during my tragically misspent youth. We had a patient who was 92, but he was still a big guy and clearly a powerful man when he was younger; still very scary. He had been in a German POW camp in WW1, and often thought he was still there. This made the nurses and aides into the prison guards from his point of view, so he was bad to try to sneak up and wallop somebody, hoping to escape. They would put teenage boys in the night shift, which was the worst (oy vey (but we were making 5 bucks an hour!)) They knew if he whopped one of us, we would just quietly go home and suffer on our own time, rather than admit we got our ass kicked by a 92 yr old guy. {8^D They gave him massive doses of methaqualone, which functionally anesthetized away his last few years. Since then I have persistently thought we can use our technology to make those last few years more worthwhile than they are currently, perhaps obviating a lot of stuff like the Quaaludes, some kind of immersive reality or something. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 21:53:34 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:53:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4E19A53B-0FBB-4298-87D7-372DC0259ACB@gmail.com> Abuse by staff in centers is so, so common. I have been verbally harassed and threatened by staff, threatened with restraints, and with heavy drugs. And I?ve also been threatened with police action and forced into ?high security? wards before. For honestly, not doing very much. For example, saying the word ?hell? or because of a stigma attached to my diagnosis. I?ve seen people given shots and five-point restraints and all of that. And it?s definitely shocking, disturbing stuff. To a certain extent I blame them, and to an extent I don?t. I understand why a culture of abuse nearly always grows in places like that, not that I condone it. It?s a similar reason to why guards brutalize inmates? it?s a natural outgrowth of how the institution is set up. For example Japanese prisons rarely have any of the kind of violence that American ones do. But that?s because they are managed in a completely different way to American prisons. I think it wouldn?t be so much of a problem if people just understood what?s expected of them (as a patient) in psych. When they get in, they?re not in a place where they really can learn. And different setups really do matter. Like the difference between psych at a county facility versus private hospital is nearly indescribable. The private psych was honestly quite helpful. County psych is honestly very dangerous at times. SR Ballard > On Nov 13, 2018, at 1:22 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her jobs. > > That reminds me of one of the uglier aspects of working in a mental hospital - harassment by the staff. Once we had a patient with catatonia and he exhibited waxy flexibility. > > So the staff would put his arms and/or legs into a certain position and he would hold it just like that. Then another position, etc. Sadly, the patient knew exactly what they were doing and that they were laughing at him the whole time, and it made him hostile. > > I also saw a guy punched. All of the above happened when I was just an aide. Aides would never do any of this stuff around upper staff. Some staff were really cruel. > > bill w > >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:50 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> I?m quite inclined to agree with you on all counts here. If I knew that my child would have issues such as Downs, micro encephalitis, hydro encephalitis, etc, I would not keep the child. Whether that meant getting an elective, or giving up for adoption. >> >> To be honest, I?m not sure I?ll have biological children anyway. Firstly, while I do have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ, I had very difficult emotional disconnection growing up. >> >> Until 16 I thought there were only 3/4 emotions and all the rest were figures of speech. I could not read facial expressions almost at all until I taught myself using some online resources meant to teach micro-expressions and lie detection. I am quite bad with faces, to be point I have on occasion not recognized my own parents (for example after they get a haircut, etc). The real Turing point for me was reading a book on NLD (Non-verbal Learning Disorder) written by a mother and her son who had the condition. I have never identified with anyone in my life more than the boy in that book. We experienced so many of the same struggles and many of the stories she told about him could have just been straight out of my own life. >> >> I believe it is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Bridging-Gap-Nonverbal-Learning-Disorder-ebook/dp/B001NMQZH6 >> >> In each of the chapters, she coaches parents through a different type of situation they might face, and how to explain it to their child in a way that will make sense. Reading those explanations was just... so profound and explained so much. I literally cannot explain how much this book really changed my life (as lame as that may sound). >> >> Additionally, for about 12 years I suffered with mental health issues, which have just recently let up. I have spent enough time in psych hospital to know exactly what you mean when it comes to budgeting issues. These issues are quite sever and run in the family. For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her jobs. >> >> But probably, the bigger reason I probably won?t have kids is because I?m terribly introverted (quite content to never leave the house) and frankly, I scare most of the guys I date. Not that I have anything against eternal bachelorhood. It has it?s perks. >> >> But I do wonder, somewhat, why there isn?t a more effective voting bloc for Downs or MR in general. I understand why mental health doesn?t, as the stigma is still quite intense in some regions, cultures, or religious groups in the US. But it seems to be making a bit of progress. Out where my mother lives, she used to do volunteer education services teaching people that mental health issues were not caused by either Sin or Demons. It?s still a very real belief in some parts of the US, unfortunately. >> >> SR Ballard >> >>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> And it's a shame that so few states provide a level of quality education, with special student Master's level education for the teachers. No surprise that life expectancy is better than the 70s. But many were better off in an institution. Most people can't realize just how much time and expertise it takes to raise a mentally retarded person, much less the costs, and much less having to keep them at home for their lifespan. Few could be left home alone. Parent can get really frustrated with having a child, in effect, living in their home all their lives. Parents who do this are saints, devoting most of their time to this. >>> >>> When presented with these facts, many parents choose to abort after the amniocentesis shows Down's. Extremely controversial issue, of course. >>> >>> Privacy laws went into effect long ago. In my time you could stroll through a hospital for the MR and peruse the hydrocephalics and all. In fact, I think the average person would be stunned. George Wallace's wife, then governor, went to Partlow (in Tuscaloosa) and came out crying on TV and vowed to go to Montgomery and put through bills for a lot more money for the MR and mentally ill, but with George Wallace pulling the strings, it never happened. I'll bet most people would come out like Lurleen Wallace did and have great compassion for the people who had to live and work in those environments. But whoever ran a political campaign mentioning money for these people and the staffs? Expert help is needed, but rarely provided. When I worked in the Mississippi state mental hospital (for $200 a month plus room and board, cooked by the inmates) you could get a job there with a 2nd grade education. Seriously. >>> >>> Keep in mind that the MR make up more than 3% of the overall population, and mental patients add much more to that, and you can see the level of money needed to provide adequate care. Given how many people are affected by having these people in their families, one would think that there would be effective lobbies. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? >>>>> >>>>> bill w >>>> >>>> Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent is, I?m not so sure. >>>> >>>> And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, but considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... that there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my questions readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I love learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my life. It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at parties. >>>> >>>> I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as you should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will instead list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals and ?odd? numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body temperature in Fahrenheit. >>>> >>>> SR Ballard >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 22:22:33 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:22:33 -0600 Subject: [ExI] puzzle In-Reply-To: <682EA63A-2823-4FC2-9BC9-5AF3F184082F@gmail.com> References: <682EA63A-2823-4FC2-9BC9-5AF3F184082F@gmail.com> Message-ID: There is a real life answer to this puzzle in which you don't have to change anything, like you do in the clock example, though that is imaginative. bill w On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:09 PM SR Ballard wrote: > That is the worst handwritten 50 I think I have ever seen. > > And here I was trying to think about a system of math based on base 50 > system with no indexation of pos/neg and/or an absolute value system. > > Occam?s razor I suppose. > > Suppose in this system 0+100 would be better notated as 0+2(50). > > I actually kind of enjoyed this exercise. It could also be viewed as > distance on the circle from a predetermined location, you can?t get more > than 50 away because you?d be off the circle. > > On Nov 13, 2018, at 1:48 PM, Will wrote: > > A clock, with 0 at the 12 o'clock position, counting up to 50 at 6 > o'clock, and counting back down to 0 on the other half. > > Picture: https://imgur.com/a/mb93qDG > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:23 AM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> 50+ 50 = 0 >> 50 + 10 = 40 >> 50 - 10 = 40 >> 30 + 20 = 50 OR 10 >> 10 + 10 = 0 OR 20 >> 0 + 100 = 0 >> 48 + 4 = 48 OR 44 >> >> I will send more if needed. >> >> bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 22:32:39 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:32:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: <4E19A53B-0FBB-4298-87D7-372DC0259ACB@gmail.com> References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> <4E19A53B-0FBB-4298-87D7-372DC0259ACB@gmail.com> Message-ID: The relationship between mental patients and staff reminds me of the one between cops and suspects. A big gap is there in both cases, and the cop and the staff member are both afraid of the suspect or patient. That makes them more susceptible to violence. And second, the patient and the suspect are both dehumanized, like the Jews were to the Nazis, so that something done to them is not really something done to a fully human person. "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" Ever see that? What did you think of the part played by Jack Nicholson? Did you think he was 'crazy'? That is, psychotic? He wasn't. He was perfectly sane but a psychopath. A rather harmless one. When they gave him shock treatment, it was not as a treatment but as a punishment, since neither the psychopath nor the psychotic benefits from shock treatment - only depressives do, and not all of them. As that did not work, they gave him a lobotomy. Dark days in the treatment of mental patients. As most of them have been. bill w On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:58 PM SR Ballard wrote: > Abuse by staff in centers is so, so common. I have been verbally harassed > and threatened by staff, threatened with restraints, and with heavy drugs. > And I?ve also been threatened with police action and forced into ?high > security? wards before. For honestly, not doing very much. For example, > saying the word ?hell? or because of a stigma attached to my diagnosis. > > I?ve seen people given shots and five-point restraints and all of that. > And it?s definitely shocking, disturbing stuff. > > To a certain extent I blame them, and to an extent I don?t. I understand > why a culture of abuse nearly always grows in places like that, not that I > condone it. It?s a similar reason to why guards brutalize inmates? it?s a > natural outgrowth of how the institution is set up. For example Japanese > prisons rarely have any of the kind of violence that American ones do. But > that?s because they are managed in a completely different way to American > prisons. > > I think it wouldn?t be so much of a problem if people just understood > what?s expected of them (as a patient) in psych. When they get in, they?re > not in a place where they really can learn. > > And different setups really do matter. Like the difference between psych > at a county facility versus private hospital is nearly indescribable. The > private psych was honestly quite helpful. County psych is honestly very > dangerous at times. > > SR Ballard > > On Nov 13, 2018, at 1:22 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a > year after losing one of her jobs. > > That reminds me of one of the uglier aspects of working in a mental > hospital - harassment by the staff. Once we had a patient with catatonia > and he exhibited waxy flexibility. > > So the staff would put his arms and/or legs into a certain position and he > would hold it just like that. Then another position, etc. Sadly, the > patient knew exactly what they were doing and that they were laughing at > him the whole time, and it made him hostile. > > I also saw a guy punched. All of the above happened when I was just an > aide. Aides would never do any of this stuff around upper staff. Some > staff were really cruel. > > bill w > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:50 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> I?m quite inclined to agree with you on all counts here. If I knew that >> my child would have issues such as Downs, micro encephalitis, hydro >> encephalitis, etc, I would not keep the child. Whether that meant getting >> an elective, or giving up for adoption. >> >> To be honest, I?m not sure I?ll have biological children anyway. Firstly, >> while I do have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ, I had very >> difficult emotional disconnection growing up. >> >> Until 16 I thought there were only 3/4 emotions and all the rest were >> figures of speech. I could not read facial expressions almost at all until >> I taught myself using some online resources meant to teach >> micro-expressions and lie detection. I am quite bad with faces, to be point >> I have on occasion not recognized my own parents (for example after they >> get a haircut, etc). The real Turing point for me was reading a book on NLD >> (Non-verbal Learning Disorder) written by a mother and her son who had the >> condition. I have never identified with anyone in my life more than the boy >> in that book. We experienced so many of the same struggles and many of the >> stories she told about him could have just been straight out of my own >> life. >> >> I believe it is this book: >> https://www.amazon.com/Bridging-Gap-Nonverbal-Learning-Disorder-ebook/dp/B001NMQZH6 >> >> In each of the chapters, she coaches parents through a different type of >> situation they might face, and how to explain it to their child in a way >> that will make sense. Reading those explanations was just... so profound >> and explained so much. I literally cannot explain how much this book really >> changed my life (as lame as that may sound). >> >> Additionally, for about 12 years I suffered with mental health issues, >> which have just recently let up. I have spent enough time in psych hospital >> to know exactly what you mean when it comes to budgeting issues. These >> issues are quite sever and run in the family. For example, my mother >> suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her >> jobs. >> >> But probably, the bigger reason I probably won?t have kids is because I?m >> terribly introverted (quite content to never leave the house) and frankly, >> I scare most of the guys I date. Not that I have anything against eternal >> bachelorhood. It has it?s perks. >> >> But I do wonder, somewhat, why there isn?t a more effective voting bloc >> for Downs or MR in general. I understand why mental health doesn?t, as the >> stigma is still quite intense in some regions, cultures, or religious >> groups in the US. But it seems to be making a bit of progress. Out where my >> mother lives, she used to do volunteer education services teaching people >> that mental health issues were not caused by either Sin or Demons. It?s >> still a very real belief in some parts of the US, unfortunately. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> And it's a shame that so few states provide a level of quality education, >> with special student Master's level education for the teachers. No >> surprise that life expectancy is better than the 70s. But many were better >> off in an institution. Most people can't realize just how much time and >> expertise it takes to raise a mentally retarded person, much less the >> costs, and much less having to keep them at home for their lifespan. Few >> could be left home alone. Parent can get really frustrated with having a >> child, in effect, living in their home all their lives. Parents who do >> this are saints, devoting most of their time to this. >> >> When presented with these facts, many parents choose to abort after the >> amniocentesis shows Down's. Extremely controversial issue, of course. >> >> Privacy laws went into effect long ago. In my time you could stroll >> through a hospital for the MR and peruse the hydrocephalics and all. In >> fact, I think the average person would be stunned. George Wallace's wife, >> then governor, went to Partlow (in Tuscaloosa) and came out crying on TV >> and vowed to go to Montgomery and put through bills for a lot more money >> for the MR and mentally ill, but with George Wallace pulling the strings, >> it never happened. I'll bet most people would come out like Lurleen Wallace >> did and have great compassion for the people who had to live and work in >> those environments. But whoever ran a political campaign mentioning money >> for these people and the staffs? Expert help is needed, but rarely >> provided. When I worked in the Mississippi state mental hospital (for $200 >> a month plus room and board, cooked by the inmates) you could get a job >> there with a 2nd grade education. Seriously. >> >> Keep in mind that the MR make up more than 3% of the overall population, >> and mental patients add much more to that, and you can see the level of >> money needed to provide adequate care. Given how many people are affected >> by having these people in their families, one would think that there would >> be effective lobbies. >> >> bill w >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace >>> wrote: >>> >>> I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years >>> in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts >>> that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really >>> stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning >>> about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - >>> percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER >>> reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a >>> statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> >>> Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to >>> de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive >>> family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have >>> increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law >>> (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving >>> education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent >>> is, I?m not so sure. >>> >>> And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, but >>> considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... that >>> there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my questions >>> readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I love >>> learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my life. >>> It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at >>> parties. >>> >>> I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as >>> you should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will >>> instead list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals >>> and ?odd? numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body >>> temperature in Fahrenheit. >>> >>> SR Ballard >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 22:47:16 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 16:47:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> <4E19A53B-0FBB-4298-87D7-372DC0259ACB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I tend to avoid both movies and books with strong mental health scenes. They?re too hard on me emotionally. So I haven?t read the book or watched the movie. SR Ballard > On Nov 13, 2018, at 4:32 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > The relationship between mental patients and staff reminds me of the one between cops and suspects. A big gap is there in both cases, and the cop and the staff member are both afraid of the suspect or patient. That makes them more susceptible to violence. And second, the patient and the suspect are both dehumanized, like the Jews were to the Nazis, so that something done to them is not really something done to a fully human person. > > "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" Ever see that? What did you think of the part played by Jack Nicholson? Did you think he was 'crazy'? That is, psychotic? > > He wasn't. He was perfectly sane but a psychopath. A rather harmless one. When they gave him shock treatment, it was not as a treatment but as a punishment, since neither the psychopath nor the psychotic benefits from shock treatment - only depressives do, and not all of them. As that did not work, they gave him a lobotomy. Dark days in the treatment of mental patients. As most of them have been. > > bill w > >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:58 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> Abuse by staff in centers is so, so common. I have been verbally harassed and threatened by staff, threatened with restraints, and with heavy drugs. And I?ve also been threatened with police action and forced into ?high security? wards before. For honestly, not doing very much. For example, saying the word ?hell? or because of a stigma attached to my diagnosis. >> >> I?ve seen people given shots and five-point restraints and all of that. And it?s definitely shocking, disturbing stuff. >> >> To a certain extent I blame them, and to an extent I don?t. I understand why a culture of abuse nearly always grows in places like that, not that I condone it. It?s a similar reason to why guards brutalize inmates? it?s a natural outgrowth of how the institution is set up. For example Japanese prisons rarely have any of the kind of violence that American ones do. But that?s because they are managed in a completely different way to American prisons. >> >> I think it wouldn?t be so much of a problem if people just understood what?s expected of them (as a patient) in psych. When they get in, they?re not in a place where they really can learn. >> >> And different setups really do matter. Like the difference between psych at a county facility versus private hospital is nearly indescribable. The private psych was honestly quite helpful. County psych is honestly very dangerous at times. >> >> SR Ballard >> >>> On Nov 13, 2018, at 1:22 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her jobs. >>> >>> That reminds me of one of the uglier aspects of working in a mental hospital - harassment by the staff. Once we had a patient with catatonia and he exhibited waxy flexibility. >>> >>> So the staff would put his arms and/or legs into a certain position and he would hold it just like that. Then another position, etc. Sadly, the patient knew exactly what they were doing and that they were laughing at him the whole time, and it made him hostile. >>> >>> I also saw a guy punched. All of the above happened when I was just an aide. Aides would never do any of this stuff around upper staff. Some staff were really cruel. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:50 PM SR Ballard wrote: >>>> I?m quite inclined to agree with you on all counts here. If I knew that my child would have issues such as Downs, micro encephalitis, hydro encephalitis, etc, I would not keep the child. Whether that meant getting an elective, or giving up for adoption. >>>> >>>> To be honest, I?m not sure I?ll have biological children anyway. Firstly, while I do have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ, I had very difficult emotional disconnection growing up. >>>> >>>> Until 16 I thought there were only 3/4 emotions and all the rest were figures of speech. I could not read facial expressions almost at all until I taught myself using some online resources meant to teach micro-expressions and lie detection. I am quite bad with faces, to be point I have on occasion not recognized my own parents (for example after they get a haircut, etc). The real Turing point for me was reading a book on NLD (Non-verbal Learning Disorder) written by a mother and her son who had the condition. I have never identified with anyone in my life more than the boy in that book. We experienced so many of the same struggles and many of the stories she told about him could have just been straight out of my own life. >>>> >>>> I believe it is this book: https://www.amazon.com/Bridging-Gap-Nonverbal-Learning-Disorder-ebook/dp/B001NMQZH6 >>>> >>>> In each of the chapters, she coaches parents through a different type of situation they might face, and how to explain it to their child in a way that will make sense. Reading those explanations was just... so profound and explained so much. I literally cannot explain how much this book really changed my life (as lame as that may sound). >>>> >>>> Additionally, for about 12 years I suffered with mental health issues, which have just recently let up. I have spent enough time in psych hospital to know exactly what you mean when it comes to budgeting issues. These issues are quite sever and run in the family. For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her jobs. >>>> >>>> But probably, the bigger reason I probably won?t have kids is because I?m terribly introverted (quite content to never leave the house) and frankly, I scare most of the guys I date. Not that I have anything against eternal bachelorhood. It has it?s perks. >>>> >>>> But I do wonder, somewhat, why there isn?t a more effective voting bloc for Downs or MR in general. I understand why mental health doesn?t, as the stigma is still quite intense in some regions, cultures, or religious groups in the US. But it seems to be making a bit of progress. Out where my mother lives, she used to do volunteer education services teaching people that mental health issues were not caused by either Sin or Demons. It?s still a very real belief in some parts of the US, unfortunately. >>>> >>>> SR Ballard >>>> >>>>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And it's a shame that so few states provide a level of quality education, with special student Master's level education for the teachers. No surprise that life expectancy is better than the 70s. But many were better off in an institution. Most people can't realize just how much time and expertise it takes to raise a mentally retarded person, much less the costs, and much less having to keep them at home for their lifespan. Few could be left home alone. Parent can get really frustrated with having a child, in effect, living in their home all their lives. Parents who do this are saints, devoting most of their time to this. >>>>> >>>>> When presented with these facts, many parents choose to abort after the amniocentesis shows Down's. Extremely controversial issue, of course. >>>>> >>>>> Privacy laws went into effect long ago. In my time you could stroll through a hospital for the MR and peruse the hydrocephalics and all. In fact, I think the average person would be stunned. George Wallace's wife, then governor, went to Partlow (in Tuscaloosa) and came out crying on TV and vowed to go to Montgomery and put through bills for a lot more money for the MR and mentally ill, but with George Wallace pulling the strings, it never happened. I'll bet most people would come out like Lurleen Wallace did and have great compassion for the people who had to live and work in those environments. But whoever ran a political campaign mentioning money for these people and the staffs? Expert help is needed, but rarely provided. When I worked in the Mississippi state mental hospital (for $200 a month plus room and board, cooked by the inmates) you could get a job there with a 2nd grade education. Seriously. >>>>> >>>>> Keep in mind that the MR make up more than 3% of the overall population, and mental patients add much more to that, and you can see the level of money needed to provide adequate care. Given how many people are affected by having these people in their families, one would think that there would be effective lobbies. >>>>> >>>>> bill w >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several years in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong doubts that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has really stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, meaning about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> bill w >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent is, I?m not so sure. >>>>>> >>>>>> And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, but considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... that there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my questions readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I love learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my life. It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at parties. >>>>>> >>>>>> I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as you should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will instead list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals and ?odd? numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body temperature in Fahrenheit. >>>>>> >>>>>> SR Ballard >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 13 23:30:43 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 17:30:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Scientism? In-Reply-To: References: <4dbd3328bf873a28acb49d0aedb1cf0a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <79FD6EFA-1193-4404-A3D9-60C3B69A8837@gmail.com> <71B550ED-62B1-457B-95A6-4208297C1282@gmail.com> <4E19A53B-0FBB-4298-87D7-372DC0259ACB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, you have missed one of the greatest acting jobs in the 20th century. bill w On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 4:51 PM SR Ballard wrote: > I tend to avoid both movies and books with strong mental health scenes. > They?re too hard on me emotionally. So I haven?t read the book or watched > the movie. > > SR Ballard > > On Nov 13, 2018, at 4:32 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > The relationship between mental patients and staff reminds me of the one > between cops and suspects. A big gap is there in both cases, and the cop > and the staff member are both afraid of the suspect or patient. That makes > them more susceptible to violence. And second, the patient and the suspect > are both dehumanized, like the Jews were to the Nazis, so that something > done to them is not really something done to a fully human person. > > "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" Ever see that? What did you think of > the part played by Jack Nicholson? Did you think he was 'crazy'? That is, > psychotic? > > He wasn't. He was perfectly sane but a psychopath. A rather harmless > one. When they gave him shock treatment, it was not as a treatment but as > a punishment, since neither the psychopath nor the psychotic benefits from > shock treatment - only depressives do, and not all of them. As that did > not work, they gave him a lobotomy. Dark days in the treatment of mental > patients. As most of them have been. > > bill w > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:58 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> Abuse by staff in centers is so, so common. I have been verbally harassed >> and threatened by staff, threatened with restraints, and with heavy drugs. >> And I?ve also been threatened with police action and forced into ?high >> security? wards before. For honestly, not doing very much. For example, >> saying the word ?hell? or because of a stigma attached to my diagnosis. >> >> I?ve seen people given shots and five-point restraints and all of that. >> And it?s definitely shocking, disturbing stuff. >> >> To a certain extent I blame them, and to an extent I don?t. I understand >> why a culture of abuse nearly always grows in places like that, not that I >> condone it. It?s a similar reason to why guards brutalize inmates? it?s a >> natural outgrowth of how the institution is set up. For example Japanese >> prisons rarely have any of the kind of violence that American ones do. But >> that?s because they are managed in a completely different way to American >> prisons. >> >> I think it wouldn?t be so much of a problem if people just understood >> what?s expected of them (as a patient) in psych. When they get in, they?re >> not in a place where they really can learn. >> >> And different setups really do matter. Like the difference between psych >> at a county facility versus private hospital is nearly indescribable. The >> private psych was honestly quite helpful. County psych is honestly very >> dangerous at times. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> On Nov 13, 2018, at 1:22 PM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> For example, my mother suffered from catatonic depression for about a >> year after losing one of her jobs. >> >> That reminds me of one of the uglier aspects of working in a mental >> hospital - harassment by the staff. Once we had a patient with catatonia >> and he exhibited waxy flexibility. >> >> So the staff would put his arms and/or legs into a certain position and >> he would hold it just like that. Then another position, etc. Sadly, the >> patient knew exactly what they were doing and that they were laughing at >> him the whole time, and it made him hostile. >> >> I also saw a guy punched. All of the above happened when I was just an >> aide. Aides would never do any of this stuff around upper staff. Some >> staff were really cruel. >> >> bill w >> >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:50 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >>> I?m quite inclined to agree with you on all counts here. If I knew that >>> my child would have issues such as Downs, micro encephalitis, hydro >>> encephalitis, etc, I would not keep the child. Whether that meant getting >>> an elective, or giving up for adoption. >>> >>> To be honest, I?m not sure I?ll have biological children anyway. >>> Firstly, while I do have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ, I >>> had very difficult emotional disconnection growing up. >>> >>> Until 16 I thought there were only 3/4 emotions and all the rest were >>> figures of speech. I could not read facial expressions almost at all until >>> I taught myself using some online resources meant to teach >>> micro-expressions and lie detection. I am quite bad with faces, to be point >>> I have on occasion not recognized my own parents (for example after they >>> get a haircut, etc). The real Turing point for me was reading a book on NLD >>> (Non-verbal Learning Disorder) written by a mother and her son who had the >>> condition. I have never identified with anyone in my life more than the boy >>> in that book. We experienced so many of the same struggles and many of the >>> stories she told about him could have just been straight out of my own >>> life. >>> >>> I believe it is this book: >>> https://www.amazon.com/Bridging-Gap-Nonverbal-Learning-Disorder-ebook/dp/B001NMQZH6 >>> >>> In each of the chapters, she coaches parents through a different type of >>> situation they might face, and how to explain it to their child in a way >>> that will make sense. Reading those explanations was just... so profound >>> and explained so much. I literally cannot explain how much this book really >>> changed my life (as lame as that may sound). >>> >>> Additionally, for about 12 years I suffered with mental health issues, >>> which have just recently let up. I have spent enough time in psych hospital >>> to know exactly what you mean when it comes to budgeting issues. These >>> issues are quite sever and run in the family. For example, my mother >>> suffered from catatonic depression for about a year after losing one of her >>> jobs. >>> >>> But probably, the bigger reason I probably won?t have kids is because >>> I?m terribly introverted (quite content to never leave the house) and >>> frankly, I scare most of the guys I date. Not that I have anything against >>> eternal bachelorhood. It has it?s perks. >>> >>> But I do wonder, somewhat, why there isn?t a more effective voting bloc >>> for Downs or MR in general. I understand why mental health doesn?t, as the >>> stigma is still quite intense in some regions, cultures, or religious >>> groups in the US. But it seems to be making a bit of progress. Out where my >>> mother lives, she used to do volunteer education services teaching people >>> that mental health issues were not caused by either Sin or Demons. It?s >>> still a very real belief in some parts of the US, unfortunately. >>> >>> SR Ballard >>> >>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 6:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace >>> wrote: >>> >>> And it's a shame that so few states provide a level of quality >>> education, with special student Master's level education for the teachers. >>> No surprise that life expectancy is better than the 70s. But many were >>> better off in an institution. Most people can't realize just how much time >>> and expertise it takes to raise a mentally retarded person, much less the >>> costs, and much less having to keep them at home for their lifespan. Few >>> could be left home alone. Parent can get really frustrated with having a >>> child, in effect, living in their home all their lives. Parents who do >>> this are saints, devoting most of their time to this. >>> >>> When presented with these facts, many parents choose to abort after the >>> amniocentesis shows Down's. Extremely controversial issue, of course. >>> >>> Privacy laws went into effect long ago. In my time you could stroll >>> through a hospital for the MR and peruse the hydrocephalics and all. In >>> fact, I think the average person would be stunned. George Wallace's wife, >>> then governor, went to Partlow (in Tuscaloosa) and came out crying on TV >>> and vowed to go to Montgomery and put through bills for a lot more money >>> for the MR and mentally ill, but with George Wallace pulling the strings, >>> it never happened. I'll bet most people would come out like Lurleen Wallace >>> did and have great compassion for the people who had to live and work in >>> those environments. But whoever ran a political campaign mentioning money >>> for these people and the staffs? Expert help is needed, but rarely >>> provided. When I worked in the Mississippi state mental hospital (for $200 >>> a month plus room and board, cooked by the inmates) you could get a job >>> there with a 2nd grade education. Seriously. >>> >>> Keep in mind that the MR make up more than 3% of the overall population, >>> and mental patients add much more to that, and you can see the level of >>> money needed to provide adequate care. Given how many people are affected >>> by having these people in their families, one would think that there would >>> be effective lobbies. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 6:01 PM SR Ballard wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:08 PM, William Flynn Wallace >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have no idea. But I can tell you this: I taught MR for several >>>> years in the 70s, and 25 was what was listed in the texts. I have strong >>>> doubts that those afflicted are any better now than they were then. It has >>>> really stuck in my mind, because, for one thing, that was the average, >>>> meaning about half were lower. Trisomy really screws up your body. Most - >>>> percentage unknown - die fairly young. For one hint, averages are NEVER >>>> reported as ranges, only as single points, so whoever did that is a >>>> statistical moron. Do you have a particular interest in this? >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, perhaps things have actually changed somewhat, due to >>>> de-institutionalization. As a side effect of being raised in a supportive >>>> family environment, the life expectancy of those with Downs seems to have >>>> increased somewhat dramatically. And, due to changes in educational law >>>> (mandating public school accommodation) it seems that more are receiving >>>> education to a higher level than before? what the standard grade equivalent >>>> is, I?m not so sure. >>>> >>>> And no, I had no particular interest in it before this conversation, >>>> but considering how common it is, I was surprised that it isn?t better ... >>>> that there isn?t more straightforward information to the answers to my >>>> questions readily available online? Which, of course, piques my interest. I >>>> love learning things which have absolutely no practical application in my >>>> life. It?s a hobby that makes me quite good at trivia, but quite a bore at >>>> parties. >>>> >>>> I?m quite aware that averages are reported as a single number, just as >>>> you should be aware that most texts intended for a lay audience will >>>> instead list them as a range if they are not a pretty number, as decimals >>>> and ?odd? numbers bother people. The only exception I can think of is body >>>> temperature in Fahrenheit. >>>> >>>> SR Ballard >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 02:37:22 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 21:37:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science In-Reply-To: References: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:17 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>If you're playing chess with a brilliant chess AI you won't be able to >> predict what its next move will be, if you could you'd be as good at chess >> at it is and you're not, but after it made its move you can easily see >> that it wasn't random and was in fact pretty damn smart. You can't predict >> what Stephen King's next novel will be but when it come out and you read >> it you can be pretty sure it was not made by a monkey banging on a >> keyboard. >> > > *> I disagree strongly with all of that. What you can predict with a > great deal of accuracy is the moves the AI won't make, as they would be > stupid and self-defeating. * > Intelligent or non-intelligent you can always predict something a system won't do but that's a long way from predicting what it will do. And besides, the the AI's chess move could look stupid to you at first, in fact it probably would and that's why you wouldn't make it yourself, only after several more moves do you understand that it wasn't a stupid move at all, it was brilliant. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 03:26:21 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 19:26:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, SR Ballard wrote: snip > To be honest, I'm not sure I'll have biological children anyway. Firstly, while I do > have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ,... My view of the topic has changed over the last 50 years. IQ is valued among transhumanist/extropians for obvious reasons. Recent studies have found that high IQ people don't reproduce well. It's not quite as bad as it might seem. People on the low end of the IQ distribution don't do well either leading to selection on both ends of the curve. Balanced selection is typical of almost any character you can measure. In the long run, if the selection is not balanced, then the center of the distribution moves over generations until both ends have about the same disadvantage. This was not the case in the fairly recent past. Gregory Clark discovered that over ~20 generations leading up to the industrial revolution there was a strong selection for IQ related traits such as numericity and literacy in the UK population. The same selection forces were active other places in Europe and in China, perhaps even more so there. There is (or rather was) a point to high IQ people having children. At least the genes were available for subsequent generations. But a couple of very high IQ people can't expect to have kids as smart as they are (on average) due to "regression to the mean." That is understood by anyone who does animal breeding. What you need to improve IQ is a subpopulation where the average member has a substantial IQ advantage over the population average and a selective advantage for the group. There are several such subpopulations in the world. I don't think I need to name them. But I don't think now enough time left for natural or even deliberate selection to act. I don't know how close we are to the singularity where all biological bets are off, or even to full control over the genetics of children. I think the most pessimistic estimates are a few generations. That's not enough time. So if you want children for their own sake, go for it. But don't feel obliged to do it to improve the average IQ of the human race. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 15:00:44 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:00:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Science or Science In-Reply-To: References: <804eb15d36473374626472e334b033d2.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Well, I think we are as close to agreement as we are going to get. bill w On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 8:42 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 3:17 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >>If you're playing chess with a brilliant chess AI you won't be able to >>> predict what its next move will be, if you could you'd be as good at chess >>> at it is and you're not, but after it made its move you can easily see >>> that it wasn't random and was in fact pretty damn smart. You can't predict >>> what Stephen King's next novel will be but when it come out and you >>> read it you can be pretty sure it was not made by a monkey banging on a >>> keyboard. >>> >> >> *> I disagree strongly with all of that. What you can predict with a >> great deal of accuracy is the moves the AI won't make, as they would be >> stupid and self-defeating. * >> > > Intelligent or non-intelligent you can always predict something a system > won't do but that's a long way from predicting what it will do. And > besides, the the AI's chess move could look stupid to you at first, in fact > it probably would and that's why you wouldn't make it yourself, only after > several more moves do you understand that it wasn't a stupid move at all, > it was brilliant. > > 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 tara at taramayastales.com Wed Nov 14 17:03:29 2018 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:03:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <671EDAED-F4A7-4780-9BB4-23467A1566DC@taramayastales.com> Smart people without children are a danger to the planet. Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no children means you don?t care if you destroy that future. That?s motive. Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being. I don?t trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which my children can thrive? He has zero stake in it. It?s even worse if his biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a robot parasite. :P Tara > On Nov 13, 2018, at 7:26 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, SR Ballard wrote: > > snip > >> To be honest, I'm not sure I'll have biological children anyway. Firstly, while I do > have a high IQ, and come from a family with high IQ,... > > My view of the topic has changed over the last 50 years. IQ is valued > among transhumanist/extropians for obvious reasons. > > > > So if you want children for their own sake, go for it. But don't feel > obliged to do it to improve the average IQ of the human race. > > Keith From pharos at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 18:37:58 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 18:37:58 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift In-Reply-To: <671EDAED-F4A7-4780-9BB4-23467A1566DC@taramayastales.com> References: <671EDAED-F4A7-4780-9BB4-23467A1566DC@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 17:46, Tara Maya wrote: > > Smart people without children are a danger to the planet. > > Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no children means you don?t care if you destroy that future. That?s motive. > > Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being. > > I don?t trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which my children can thrive? He has zero stake in it. It?s even worse if his biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a robot parasite. > > :P Some of the smart billionaires do have children though. Also it appears that many of the billionaires are investing heavily in anti-ageing and life extension research. So they do have an interest in a good future for the planet. Of course their riches will protect them to some extent if earth conditions get difficult, but they do have an interest in the future. The problem is more about psychopathic billionaires who don't mind how many die so long as their own life improves. BillK From avant at sollegro.com Wed Nov 14 18:55:27 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 10:55:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift Message-ID: <49e09ae71071da908da15c92adc6ae09.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Tara Maya wrote: > Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no > children means you don?t care if you destroy that future. That?s motive. While I agree that it would be of benefit for mankind if smart people bred, with or without the Singularity, I don't think it is fair to characterize those who choose not to have children as misanthropes. > Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come > along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being. A psychopath is a psychopath, with or without children. Plenty of psychopathic children have killed the parents and vice versa. The vast majority of people without children, smart or not, are not psychopaths. People without children still share a lot of genes with the rest of humanity not to mention extended family like nieces and nephews. Crazy is what crazy does but I fail to see any rational upside to destroying the human race ESPECIALLY if one does not have children. Whereas if one does have children one could rationalize genocide as clearing the field for ones children. > > I don?t trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a > roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very > suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which > my children can thrive? Assuming the roboticist is a man, how do you know that he is is not just shy and awkward around women because of his small penis. How do you know he doesn't have people in his life that he loves who might have children of their own? Neither Isaac Newton or George Washington ever fathered any children and neither of them turned out to be monsters. > He has zero stake in it. It?s even worse if his > biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a > robot parasite. That parasite better be one damn cute and charming robot because he shares more genes with complete strangers than he does with the robot. But that does sound like the premise for a good story. ;-) Stuart LaForge From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Nov 14 21:27:47 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 15:27:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift In-Reply-To: <49e09ae71071da908da15c92adc6ae09.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <49e09ae71071da908da15c92adc6ae09.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <32FF7134-5280-43FE-8A4C-851412C761EE@gmail.com> I?m not in any position at the moment to have children, but mostly, even if I were, I likely would not have biological children. It?s not related to the IQ bit, but more the metal health bit. I would feel terrible knowing that I chose to have a child when I knew would suffer unimaginable emotional pain, just because of my own selfish desires. That said, if I were, by some miracle to become married. I believe I would raise (adopt) children. Or if gene editing were more developed at that point, I would be willing as well. That being said, I?m not sure I have the right temperament for motherhood. But that?s another discussion altogether. SR Ballard > On Nov 14, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Tara Maya wrote: > >> Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no >> children means you don?t care if you destroy that future. That?s motive. > > While I agree that it would be of benefit for mankind if smart people > bred, with or without the Singularity, I don't think it is fair to > characterize those who choose not to have children as misanthropes. > >> Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come >> along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being. > > A psychopath is a psychopath, with or without children. Plenty of > psychopathic children have killed the parents and vice versa. The vast > majority of people without children, smart or not, are not psychopaths. > People without children still share a lot of genes with the rest of > humanity not to mention extended family like nieces and nephews. > > Crazy is what crazy does but I fail to see any rational upside to > destroying the human race ESPECIALLY if one does not have children. > Whereas if one does have children one could rationalize genocide as > clearing the field for ones children. > >> >> I don?t trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a >> roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very >> suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which >> my children can thrive? > > Assuming the roboticist is a man, how do you know that he is is not just > shy and awkward around women because of his small penis. How do you know > he doesn't have people in his life that he loves who might have children > of their own? > > Neither Isaac Newton or George Washington ever fathered any children and > neither of them turned out to be monsters. > >> He has zero stake in it. It?s even worse if his >> biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a >> robot parasite. > > That parasite better be one damn cute and charming robot because he shares > more genes with complete strangers than he does with the robot. But that > does sound like the premise for a good story. ;-) > > 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 Thu Nov 15 01:34:54 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 19:34:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] puzzle answer Message-ID: Football field line numbers, with 0 being the goal line. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 05:39:21 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 21:39:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift In-Reply-To: <32FF7134-5280-43FE-8A4C-851412C761EE@gmail.com> References: <49e09ae71071da908da15c92adc6ae09.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <32FF7134-5280-43FE-8A4C-851412C761EE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Same, from the male side. (Including the temperament.) There were many points in my childhood where I could have just lapsed into insanity. Statistically, if I were to have many children, most...well, "regret having them" wouldn't be totally untrue if the probable outcomes came to pass. Then again, that seems to come inextricably with the genes for high IQ. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 1:31 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > I?m not in any position at the moment to have children, but mostly, even if I were, I likely would not have biological children. It?s not related to the IQ bit, but more the metal health bit. I would feel terrible knowing that I chose to have a child when I knew would suffer unimaginable emotional pain, just because of my own selfish desires. > > That said, if I were, by some miracle to become married. I believe I would raise (adopt) children. > > Or if gene editing were more developed at that point, I would be willing as well. > > That being said, I?m not sure I have the right temperament for motherhood. But that?s another discussion altogether. > > SR Ballard > > > On Nov 14, 2018, at 12:55 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > > > > Tara Maya wrote: > > > >> Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no > >> children means you don?t care if you destroy that future. That?s motive. > > > > While I agree that it would be of benefit for mankind if smart people > > bred, with or without the Singularity, I don't think it is fair to > > characterize those who choose not to have children as misanthropes. > > > >> Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come > >> along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being. > > > > A psychopath is a psychopath, with or without children. Plenty of > > psychopathic children have killed the parents and vice versa. The vast > > majority of people without children, smart or not, are not psychopaths. > > People without children still share a lot of genes with the rest of > > humanity not to mention extended family like nieces and nephews. > > > > Crazy is what crazy does but I fail to see any rational upside to > > destroying the human race ESPECIALLY if one does not have children. > > Whereas if one does have children one could rationalize genocide as > > clearing the field for ones children. > > > >> > >> I don?t trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a > >> roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very > >> suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which > >> my children can thrive? > > > > Assuming the roboticist is a man, how do you know that he is is not just > > shy and awkward around women because of his small penis. How do you know > > he doesn't have people in his life that he loves who might have children > > of their own? > > > > Neither Isaac Newton or George Washington ever fathered any children and > > neither of them turned out to be monsters. > > > >> He has zero stake in it. It?s even worse if his > >> biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a > >> robot parasite. > > > > That parasite better be one damn cute and charming robot because he shares > > more genes with complete strangers than he does with the robot. But that > > does sound like the premise for a good story. ;-) > > > > Stuart LaForge > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 07:29:00 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 01:29:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] puzzle answer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, So the 50 yard line is the one in the middle? I only really watch hockey. SR Ballard > On Nov 14, 2018, at 7:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Football field line numbers, with 0 being the goal line. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 08:21:18 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 00:21:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] puzzle answer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah. 50 yards in the middle, then counting down to 0 on either side. "+" and "-" are the same in this context, as they're the same thing just viewed from each team's perspective. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 11:33 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > Well, So the 50 yard line is the one in the middle? I only really watch hockey. > > SR Ballard > > On Nov 14, 2018, at 7:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Football field line numbers, with 0 being the goal line. > > bill w > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 16:03:53 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:03:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? Message-ID: Now I always heard jokes, growing up, about how before the internet people used to buy the National Geographic magazine. And I thought it was just a joke. But it was mentioned on list a little while ago, but less as a joke and more as a fact. Did this legitimately happen? And if it?s as widespread as the joke suggests, what effect do you think it had on the sexuality on the generation (2 generations?) of men who purchased these magazines? Do you think it lead to an interest in inter-cultural marriage? Or a dehumanization of the cultures featured? Or something else? Or no real difference at all? Are there studies done about it like we have studies of the effects of HD steaming internet porn? From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 15 17:34:05 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:34:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? >...Now I always heard jokes, growing up, about how before the internet people used to buy the National Geographic magazine. And I thought it was just a joke. But it was mentioned on list a little while ago, but less as a joke and more as a fact. >...Did this legitimately happen? Two terms you used didn't apply: men and buy. I suspect plenty of us who were gazing with lust at Miss July 1957 were about age 12 at the time, and we didn't buy the magazines, we found them in the bound periodicals at the public library (NG stopped doing nudes with the March 1963 edition (which is why if you find a collection of bound NatGeos, the binding is in perfect condition from 1964 onwards but the 1957 edition is a tattered ruin.) A grown man has money, so he would buy Playboy (for the articles of course.) But Playboy wasn't available in our library or anywhere else if one is age 12 with no money in 1973. >...And if it?s as widespread as the joke suggests, what effect do you think it had on the sexuality on the generation (2 generations?) of men who purchased these magazines? Do you think it lead to an interest in inter-cultural marriage? Or a dehumanization of the cultures featured? Or something else? Or no real difference at all? Hard to say. Even now with all the free ogleworthies available online, any style any anything you can think of is out there somewhere (if you know where, do let me know.) I don't see that it causes any kind of dehumanization. I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes. I don't see how a video image competes with her. I don't worry that my bride has access to video of men with way more and better stuff than I have. Shrugs. Interesting aside: if roboharlots get good enough, we might have the opposite problem: humanization. Humans will be competing with literal sex machines, and this time it won't be just men. Reasoning: plenty of married people whose sense of morality would not permit visiting a harlot might have to think about it before deciding the same ethos applies to copulating with a robot. Is that adultery? I am ready to argue it isn't. It's more...emmm... technology... evaluation. Engineers do this kind of thing always. But I digress. >...Are there studies done about it like we have studies of the effects of HD steaming internet porn? It would be interesting because the theories on the impact of free porn are contradictory. One camp claims it distracts people (well, men) and anther claims it allows people (well men) to put things into perspective. Once one realizes that these video beauties are fun to look at but none of them are likely to be suitable long term life partners, it would cause people (men) to look beyond the chiseled abs and the tight buns. These gazeworthies are still fun to look at of course, but in the long run, we embrace our long term mates (I still do.) My bride and I are approaching our 35th anniversary as the festival of Thanksgiving approaches, which is always an easy holiday for me, for I know I have plenty for which to be deeply and profoundly grateful: I know I am living my dream. I don't see that anything is lost from that by an occasional gaze on the internet at the athletic bods and tight buns. SR what's your take on that please? spike From avant at sollegro.com Thu Nov 15 17:51:21 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:51:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem Message-ID: BillK wrote: > In the UK there exists the Public Order Act 1986 which aims to ensure > that individual rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are > balanced against the rights of others to go about their daily lives > without being harassed, alarmed or distressed. The law states: > An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a > private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or > behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation > is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is > harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling. I can see how that law can be tricky to interpret with the Internet and all. People can publicly offend someone from the privacy of their own home these days. > In effect this means that you can be as offensive as you like in > private, but you are in trouble if you go around harassing or threatening > people in public. Freedom of speech and security from being offended are mutually incompatible values. And as far as I know, nobody has a right not to be offended however much the political correctness crowd might protest. > A case has arisen recently where an offensive private party was > recorded and the video posted online. The men involved were arrested by > police on suspicion that a public order offence had been committed and > their home was searched for evidence. The case has not been decided yet, > but my opinion is that no charges will be made, on the grounds that the > men did not expect their private behaviour to be publicised online and > thus offend the public. Since in the US, there are no laws prohibiting offensive speech in public or private, media and industry have become a sort of unofficial political correctness enforcement mechanism. > This raises the problem that because we now live in an environment > where everybody carries a phone that can record video, is there no longer > the expectation that any offensive behaviour will be private? Do we have > to always behave as though thousands of people are watching? If there are people with phones about, then sadly yes. There have been many instances lately in the United States, where videos of people saying racist things in private were later posted onto social media. Whereas the government has been silent on these occasions, the people who uttered racial slurs in private have been vilified on the media and often publicly fired by their employers presumably under the auspices of company public relations. So yeah, in the U.S. certain types of offensive speech while not illegal, can still carry some pretty dire economic and social consequences for the speakers. Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 15 18:25:49 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:25:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Stuart LaForge Subject: Re: [ExI] Transparent Society problem BillK wrote: >> In the UK there exists the Public Order Act 1986 which aims to ensure > that individual rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly > are balanced against the rights of others to go about their daily > lives without being harassed, alarmed or distressed... Since BillK wrote this a few days ago, it has been rattling around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. In the USA, the rights of the people are spelled out in the constitution; there is no need to balance those against anything. Legally those rights win in the long run. I have heard the argument that people have the right to not be harassed, which is used against people who go onto college campuses with posters of aborted fetuses and crap like that, but from what I understand, that kind of thing is first amendment protected speech. If it is a public university and the poster child gets assaulted (a common consequence) then the one doing the assaulting is guilty, the poster child is innocent. I notice the anti-abortion crowd will often get sturdy-looking children who are just under 18 to carry the posters. Most college students are 18 or older. So if some outraged collegian takes a swing at some 300 pound gorilla (who is 17) the video evidence shown in court is a woman assaulting a child. Things tend to go badly with those kind of charges. Conclusion: Americans do not have the right to not be offended. I can't find that one anywhere in the Bill of Rights. >>... A case has arisen recently where an offensive private party was > recorded and the video posted online... Ja, more weirdness occurs as we enter the age of super-accountability. Since the advent of technology which enables easy large-scale video and audio recording, any offhanded comment by any Hollyweird bit actor becomes a news story. Simultaneously, any comment or act seen or comment heard by several people, but not recorded, never happened. With super-accountability comes super-forgiveness for anything for which hard evidence is absent. The plethora of external storage of data has caused collective amnesia. If one is well known to have been a total asshole in the past but without digital documentation, his reputation is mostly erased with all the good people's digitally undocumented past. Fun example: local high school principal, young, energetic, up and coming, fast riser, highly regarded, considered the likely next superintendent. The day after the 2016 election, the students staged a walkout, assembled on the field. He went out there with a bullhorn and demonstrated solidarity with them by shouting over the bullhorn FUCK DONALD TRUMP to massive cheers. Someone recorded it on her cell phone, posted it to FaceBook within minutes, showed up on mainstream news within the hour, his career was a smoldering ruin by the end of the day. For the next month, if one entered into Google the name of our town, that video was the first five hits. Of course no one would hire him. His LinkIn page is silent. We don't know where he went. Object lesson: this is the age of super-accountability. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 18:42:24 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:42:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hey!! Playboy DID have good articles. It did. I taught a sex class (no lab, sadly) and my take on porn is that unless one gets truly addicted it is not worth thinking about. In any case, what's wrong with having sex 10 times a day? One South Sea island has a tribe that believes that if you don't have it that often, the women can't get pregnant. Convenient theory, I say. I don't really know of any fantasies that are truly disrupting to one's life. Of course you can take anything too far, and spend your life creating a 15 foot diameter ball of string. We can watch 'Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous' without going to rob a bank so that we can have those things. Most fantasies are harmless. Period. And they provide things that we cannot experience in real life, sometimes. Where are all the pretty girls? Not at Kroger or Walmart, for sure. On TV and videos. Just tell me this: where did we ever get the notion that any aspect of sex was dirty? The girls in Playboy - dirty? Smutty? Sounds like something invented by prudes. Viewing a naked body is sinful? Huh? Is lust currently on your list of sins? What could be healthier? It wakes your body up and tells it that you are still somebody important in this world, and the body gears up to perform. Healthy. It's not just the mental effects of sex in older age. It's the physical things in your body that help keep you young. You know what they say about older age sex: use it or lose it. Very true in fact, esp. for men. bill w On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:38 AM wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > SR Ballard > Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? > > > > > >...Now I always heard jokes, growing up, about how before the internet > people used to buy the National Geographic magazine. And I thought it was > just a joke. But it was mentioned on list a little while ago, but less as a > joke and more as a fact. > > >...Did this legitimately happen? > > Two terms you used didn't apply: men and buy. I suspect plenty of us who > were gazing with lust at Miss July 1957 were about age 12 at the time, and > we didn't buy the magazines, we found them in the bound periodicals at the > public library (NG stopped doing nudes with the March 1963 edition (which > is why if you find a collection of bound NatGeos, the binding is in perfect > condition from 1964 onwards but the 1957 edition is a tattered ruin.) A > grown man has money, so he would buy Playboy (for the articles of course.) > But Playboy wasn't available in our library or anywhere else if one is age > 12 with no money in 1973. > > >...And if it?s as widespread as the joke suggests, what effect do you > think it had on the sexuality on the generation (2 generations?) of men who > purchased these magazines? Do you think it lead to an interest in > inter-cultural marriage? Or a dehumanization of the cultures featured? Or > something else? Or no real difference at all? > > Hard to say. Even now with all the free ogleworthies available online, > any style any anything you can think of is out there somewhere (if you know > where, do let me know.) I don't see that it causes any kind of > dehumanization. I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something > wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes. I don't see > how a video image competes with her. I don't worry that my bride has > access to video of men with way more and better stuff than I have. Shrugs. > > Interesting aside: if roboharlots get good enough, we might have the > opposite problem: humanization. Humans will be competing with literal sex > machines, and this time it won't be just men. Reasoning: plenty of married > people whose sense of morality would not permit visiting a harlot might > have to think about it before deciding the same ethos applies to copulating > with a robot. Is that adultery? I am ready to argue it isn't. It's > more...emmm... technology... evaluation. Engineers do this kind of thing > always. > > But I digress. > > >...Are there studies done about it like we have studies of the effects of > HD steaming internet porn? > > It would be interesting because the theories on the impact of free porn > are contradictory. One camp claims it distracts people (well, men) and > anther claims it allows people (well men) to put things into perspective. > Once one realizes that these video beauties are fun to look at but none of > them are likely to be suitable long term life partners, it would cause > people (men) to look beyond the chiseled abs and the tight buns. > > These gazeworthies are still fun to look at of course, but in the long > run, we embrace our long term mates (I still do.) My bride and I are > approaching our 35th anniversary as the festival of Thanksgiving > approaches, which is always an easy holiday for me, for I know I have > plenty for which to be deeply and profoundly grateful: I know I am living > my dream. I don't see that anything is lost from that by an occasional > gaze on the internet at the athletic bods and tight buns. > > SR what's your take on that please? > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 19:16:06 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:16:06 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 18:32, spike wrote: > In the USA, the rights of the people are spelled out in the constitution; > there is no need to balance those against anything. Legally those rights > win in the long run. > > I have heard the argument that people have the right to not be harassed, > which is used against people who go onto college campuses with posters of > aborted fetuses and crap like that, but from what I understand, that kind of > thing is first amendment protected speech. If it is a public university and > the poster child gets assaulted (a common consequence) then the one doing > the assaulting is guilty, the poster child is innocent. > > Conclusion: Americans do not have the right to not be offended. I can't > find that one anywhere in the Bill of Rights. > > > Fun example: local high school principal, young, energetic, up and coming, > fast riser, highly regarded, considered the likely next superintendent. The > day after the 2016 election, the students staged a walkout, assembled on the > field. He went out there with a bullhorn and demonstrated solidarity with > them by shouting over the bullhorn FUCK DONALD TRUMP to massive cheers. > Someone recorded it on her cell phone, posted it to FaceBook within minutes, > showed up on mainstream news within the hour, his career was a smoldering > ruin by the end of the day. For the next month, if one entered into Google > the name of our town, that video was the first five hits. Of course no one > would hire him. His LinkIn page is silent. We don't know where he went. > > Object lesson: this is the age of super-accountability. > Look up 'chilling effect'. Definition - In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. Outside the legal context in common usage; any coercion or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be statistically measured or be plainly observed. -------- At private parties or discussions everyone carries a smartphone and is continually playing with it. Of course nowadays video recording does not require something as conspicuous as a camera or smartphone. So not only are all the warnings about posting dangerous opinions on Facepalm coming true, but even the uttering of unpopular opinions is becoming a very risky action. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 15 19:29:08 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:29:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00c901d47d19$7b119030$7134b090$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? >...I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes. I don't see how a video image competes with her. ... spike Retract. Neighbor lady: Hey Spike, I saw you on People of Walmart. Now normal men look great in comparison! spike From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 15 19:51:22 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:51:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: <00c901d47d19$7b119030$7134b090$@rainier66.com> References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> <00c901d47d19$7b119030$7134b090$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00d301d47d1c$96475300$c2d5f900$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 11:29 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? >...I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes. I don't see how a video image competes with her. ... spike Retract. Neighbor lady: Hey Spike, I saw you on People of Walmart. Now normal men look great in comparison! spike But think about it a minute: http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ Number 1: OK so the sexy cop has odd fashion sense. So did Bat Man. Number 2: pisses me off, so I will leave it as animals are not play toys. Number 3: I see not one thing wrong with this. Guys often develop this build and of course the pants need to go under it. What would it look like if they made pants to go over top of it? So of course the pants don't always want to stay up but what if we are out somewhere and the button pops off? This happens. No worries, aisle 7, bungee cord, couple bucks, done. Number 4: well, why the heck not? Is there someone in the Walmart McDonalds you want to visit with? This device is just the ticket for lunch break at Walmart. It is kind of an immersive reality: it can do image recognition, replace the image of Sexy Cop with NG Miss July 1957. That would make the whole dining experience much more pleasant. Fun aside on this: my son is in 7th grade. In one his classes called Makers Dojo, they taught them how to program Immersive Reality software package to do this sort of thing. Kids are so lucky these days. When the tech is ready, I will totally get one of thse and go hang out at Walmart. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 19:58:47 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:58:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem HELP - LAWYER In-Reply-To: References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Don't we have a lawyer around? Several things: people have the right not to be harassed, sexually or otherwise. It could be considered verbal assault. A person is not free to say just anything, the old standard being yelling FIRE in a movie theater. So free speech is not entirely free. You and your sign can be removed as a public nuisance, distracting traffic, etc. But outside those things, no, no right not to be offended, when it is always the case that the person can escape seeing or hearing whatever it is they are offended by. If you don't like the speaker, don't go to the speech. Unfortunately for us liberals, the ultra liberal crowd makes big noises about offending. In fact, I just bought a book co-authored by Jonathan Haidt, called The Coddling of the American Mind, on just this subject. The problem is that our elhi education is already way too politically correct, such as omitting details about George Washington and others that puts them in a bad light. People don't want children to know those things and so textbook companies are forced to have authors write only good stuff. Texas is a really bad example of censorship. Two more things: 1 - free speech incl. the right to dissent, and 2 - a society oriented towards individual effort and not emphasizing not sticking out from the crowd (a la Far East societies). These two things appear to me to be the reasons we are the innovators on this planet and not some countries where they are just as smart as we are but lack those two things. bill w On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 1:30 PM BillK wrote: > On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 18:32, spike wrote: > > In the USA, the rights of the people are spelled out in the constitution; > > there is no need to balance those against anything. Legally those rights > > win in the long run. > > > > I have heard the argument that people have the right to not be harassed, > > which is used against people who go onto college campuses with posters of > > aborted fetuses and crap like that, but from what I understand, that > kind of > > thing is first amendment protected speech. If it is a public university > and > > the poster child gets assaulted (a common consequence) then the one doing > > the assaulting is guilty, the poster child is innocent. > > > > Conclusion: Americans do not have the right to not be offended. I can't > > find that one anywhere in the Bill of Rights. > > > > > > Fun example: local high school principal, young, energetic, up and > coming, > > fast riser, highly regarded, considered the likely next superintendent. > The > > day after the 2016 election, the students staged a walkout, assembled on > the > > field. He went out there with a bullhorn and demonstrated solidarity > with > > them by shouting over the bullhorn FUCK DONALD TRUMP to massive cheers. > > Someone recorded it on her cell phone, posted it to FaceBook within > minutes, > > showed up on mainstream news within the hour, his career was a smoldering > > ruin by the end of the day. For the next month, if one entered into > Google > > the name of our town, that video was the first five hits. Of course no > one > > would hire him. His LinkIn page is silent. We don't know where he went. > > > > Object lesson: this is the age of super-accountability. > > > > > Look up 'chilling effect'. > Definition - > In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or > discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights > by the threat of legal sanction. The right that is most often > described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US > constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused > by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a > court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause > people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech > or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. > Outside the legal context in common usage; any coercion or threat of > coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a > group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be > statistically measured or be plainly observed. > -------- > > At private parties or discussions everyone carries a smartphone and is > continually playing with it. > Of course nowadays video recording does not require something as > conspicuous as a camera or smartphone. > So not only are all the warnings about posting dangerous opinions on > Facepalm coming true, but even the uttering of unpopular opinions is > becoming a very risky action. > > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 20:24:23 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:24:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Like I said, I literally wasn?t even born yet in the period you mention (57-64), and actually neither were my parents. Which is why I have questions. I?m not implying NatGeo as dehumanizing/humanizing women, but cultures. Just like I said, do you think it had any influence on cultural relations or ethic interests etc? The argument with HD streaming porn is unrealistic expectations. And maybe that?s not a problem in your generation but it really is in mine. ?Why doesn?t your ___ look like this? Is _____ normal?? Etc. Or a move toward... more extreme things earlier. Trust me, I?m all for kink, like what you like, but the number of (straight) guys who won?t accept anything less than anal, is, well, a bit bizarre? As for video porn competing with actual women, I tend to think it doesn?t. Studies show that most people still masturbate while in relationships (both men and women) because it?s not about the exact same thing as sex at all. So in a generally healthy person, I think porn is no big deal. I can?t say I watch very much because basically none of it is marketed toward me and has what I want in it. I still look at times (because, you know, the internet has everything, right?) but I rarely see anything I want to look at. ?Oh, look at those abs? doesn?t really do it for me. Is robo-harlotry cheating? In my opinion, if the robot is non-sentient, no. If sentient, then yes. But some people view porn as cheating, so opinions will differ. > On Nov 15, 2018, at 11:34 AM, wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard > Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? > > > > >> ...Now I always heard jokes, growing up, about how before the internet people used to buy the National Geographic magazine. And I thought it was just a joke. But it was mentioned on list a little while ago, but less as a joke and more as a fact. > >> ...Did this legitimately happen? > > Two terms you used didn't apply: men and buy. I suspect plenty of us who were gazing with lust at Miss July 1957 were about age 12 at the time, and we didn't buy the magazines, we found them in the bound periodicals at the public library (NG stopped doing nudes with the March 1963 edition (which is why if you find a collection of bound NatGeos, the binding is in perfect condition from 1964 onwards but the 1957 edition is a tattered ruin.) A grown man has money, so he would buy Playboy (for the articles of course.) But Playboy wasn't available in our library or anywhere else if one is age 12 with no money in 1973. > >> ...And if it?s as widespread as the joke suggests, what effect do you think it had on the sexuality on the generation (2 generations?) of men who purchased these magazines? Do you think it lead to an interest in inter-cultural marriage? Or a dehumanization of the cultures featured? Or something else? Or no real difference at all? > > Hard to say. Even now with all the free ogleworthies available online, any style any anything you can think of is out there somewhere (if you know where, do let me know.) I don't see that it causes any kind of dehumanization. I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes. I don't see how a video image competes with her. I don't worry that my bride has access to video of men with way more and better stuff than I have. Shrugs. > > Interesting aside: if roboharlots get good enough, we might have the opposite problem: humanization. Humans will be competing with literal sex machines, and this time it won't be just men. Reasoning: plenty of married people whose sense of morality would not permit visiting a harlot might have to think about it before deciding the same ethos applies to copulating with a robot. Is that adultery? I am ready to argue it isn't. It's more...emmm... technology... evaluation. Engineers do this kind of thing always. > > But I digress. > >> ...Are there studies done about it like we have studies of the effects of HD steaming internet porn? > > It would be interesting because the theories on the impact of free porn are contradictory. One camp claims it distracts people (well, men) and anther claims it allows people (well men) to put things into perspective. Once one realizes that these video beauties are fun to look at but none of them are likely to be suitable long term life partners, it would cause people (men) to look beyond the chiseled abs and the tight buns. > > These gazeworthies are still fun to look at of course, but in the long run, we embrace our long term mates (I still do.) My bride and I are approaching our 35th anniversary as the festival of Thanksgiving approaches, which is always an easy holiday for me, for I know I have plenty for which to be deeply and profoundly grateful: I know I am living my dream. I don't see that anything is lost from that by an occasional gaze on the internet at the athletic bods and tight buns. > > SR what's your take on that please? > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 21:54:26 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 13:54:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article Message-ID: Tara Maya wrote: > Smart people without children are a danger to the planet. If you mean the human race, you should say so. Humans are a long way from being a danger to "the planet." Although that may not always be the case. Accelerando by Charles Stross (an early participant of this list) has the "vile offspring" of the human race taking the Earth apart to build clouds of "computronium" around the sun. > Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no children means you don't care if you destroy that future. That's motive. I read this as unjustified generalizations. Read up on Hamilton's rule. Even people with no children have a genetic interest in the future. According to gene testing, there are thousands of people who share bits and pieces of my genes. The problem with concern about the future is called "discount rate." How this became part of our evolved psychology is worthy of serious study. > Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being. > I don't trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which my children can thrive? He has zero stake in it. It's even worse if his biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a robot parasite. What is the long-term future? Do humans stay biological? Or do we upload and become mostly machines? Do we spread into the universe or stay where the speed of light lets us communicate? (Assuming no FTL.) On a less expansive scale, the Atlantic has a fascinating article Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex? Despite the easing of taboos and the rise of hookup apps, Americans are in the midst of a sex recession. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/ Long article, but worth reading to the end. Definitely related to your concerns. Keith From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 15 22:38:29 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:38:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015401d47d33$ee86e910$cb94bb30$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article > ... Accelerando...has the "vile offspring" of the human race taking the Earth apart to build clouds of "computronium" around the sun... Keith Keith when you state it like that, it almost makes it sound like a bad thing. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Nov 15 23:08:57 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:08:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Ballard wrote: The argument with HD streaming porn is unrealistic expectations. And maybe that?s not a problem in your generation but it really is in mine. ?Why doesn?t your ___ look like this? Is _____ normal?? Etc. Or a move toward... more extreme things earlier. Trust me, I?m all for kink, like what you like, but the number of (straight) guys who won?t accept anything less than anal, is, well, a bit bizarre? As part of the sex course that I taught I developed a survey. People in relationships filled it out. What was in it was various ways of having sex and attitudes towards including other people, and so forth. I warned the class that this could be very dangerous to a relationship, and so it turned out to be. At least one couple broke up and several had big arguments. It came down to a situation like "Wow, you want to do that? I would not do that in a million years, It's gross", and similar remarks. Men wanting a threesome was a big turnoff for most women. I should have published that study. >From the article Keith posted, I saw things that would never occur to me in a billion years: choking a partner on a first date - or hookup, or whatever. In my class I recommended that people who were going to have sex for the first time, at least with that partner, discuss what was and what was not going to go on. The problem with that is that nobody wants to sit down and have a discussion while sex is in the offing. The counterargument is that no one wants to be surprised by sex acts that are totally unwanted. Men, and to a lesser extent, women, have a lot of ego tied up in their sexual expertise. Women are very likely to feel inferior about their bodies. Both are likely to have unrealistic expectations. But the fact is that few people have good sex the first time, even if no kinky stuff occurs. Great first sex mostly occurs in novels. Women get too shy. (Playboy cartoon from long ago: man and woman in bed afterwards, and he says "I especially enjoyed that time when you moved." Men get too fast. Other timing errors occur. The word 'demand' has no place in a sexual relationship, or any other kind of relationship, for that matter - to me. Total agreement, or no go. bill w On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:28 PM SR Ballard wrote: > Like I said, I literally wasn?t even born yet in the period you mention > (57-64), and actually neither were my parents. Which is why I have > questions. > > I?m not implying NatGeo as dehumanizing/humanizing women, but cultures. > Just like I said, do you think it had any influence on cultural relations > or ethic interests etc? > > The argument with HD streaming porn is unrealistic expectations. And maybe > that?s not a problem in your generation but it really is in mine. ?Why > doesn?t your ___ look like this? Is _____ normal?? Etc. > > Or a move toward... more extreme things earlier. Trust me, I?m all for > kink, like what you like, but the number of (straight) guys who won?t > accept anything less than anal, is, well, a bit bizarre? > > As for video porn competing with actual women, I tend to think it doesn?t. > Studies show that most people still masturbate while in relationships (both > men and women) because it?s not about the exact same thing as sex at all. > So in a generally healthy person, I think porn is no big deal. > > I can?t say I watch very much because basically none of it is marketed > toward me and has what I want in it. I still look at times (because, you > know, the internet has everything, right?) but I rarely see anything I want > to look at. ?Oh, look at those abs? doesn?t really do it for me. > > Is robo-harlotry cheating? In my opinion, if the robot is non-sentient, > no. If sentient, then yes. But some people view porn as cheating, so > opinions will differ. > > > On Nov 15, 2018, at 11:34 AM, > wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf > Of SR Ballard > > Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? > > > > > > > > > >> ...Now I always heard jokes, growing up, about how before the internet > people used to buy the National Geographic magazine. And I thought it was > just a joke. But it was mentioned on list a little while ago, but less as a > joke and more as a fact. > > > >> ...Did this legitimately happen? > > > > Two terms you used didn't apply: men and buy. I suspect plenty of us > who were gazing with lust at Miss July 1957 were about age 12 at the time, > and we didn't buy the magazines, we found them in the bound periodicals at > the public library (NG stopped doing nudes with the March 1963 edition > (which is why if you find a collection of bound NatGeos, the binding is in > perfect condition from 1964 onwards but the 1957 edition is a tattered > ruin.) A grown man has money, so he would buy Playboy (for the articles of > course.) But Playboy wasn't available in our library or anywhere else if > one is age 12 with no money in 1973. > > > >> ...And if it?s as widespread as the joke suggests, what effect do you > think it had on the sexuality on the generation (2 generations?) of men who > purchased these magazines? Do you think it lead to an interest in > inter-cultural marriage? Or a dehumanization of the cultures featured? Or > something else? Or no real difference at all? > > > > Hard to say. Even now with all the free ogleworthies available online, > any style any anything you can think of is out there somewhere (if you know > where, do let me know.) I don't see that it causes any kind of > dehumanization. I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something > wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes. I don't see > how a video image competes with her. I don't worry that my bride has > access to video of men with way more and better stuff than I have. Shrugs. > > > > Interesting aside: if roboharlots get good enough, we might have the > opposite problem: humanization. Humans will be competing with literal sex > machines, and this time it won't be just men. Reasoning: plenty of married > people whose sense of morality would not permit visiting a harlot might > have to think about it before deciding the same ethos applies to copulating > with a robot. Is that adultery? I am ready to argue it isn't. It's > more...emmm... technology... evaluation. Engineers do this kind of thing > always. > > > > But I digress. > > > >> ...Are there studies done about it like we have studies of the effects > of HD steaming internet porn? > > > > It would be interesting because the theories on the impact of free porn > are contradictory. One camp claims it distracts people (well, men) and > anther claims it allows people (well men) to put things into perspective. > Once one realizes that these video beauties are fun to look at but none of > them are likely to be suitable long term life partners, it would cause > people (men) to look beyond the chiseled abs and the tight buns. > > > > These gazeworthies are still fun to look at of course, but in the long > run, we embrace our long term mates (I still do.) My bride and I are > approaching our 35th anniversary as the festival of Thanksgiving > approaches, which is always an easy holiday for me, for I know I have > plenty for which to be deeply and profoundly grateful: I know I am living > my dream. I don't see that anything is lost from that by an occasional > gaze on the internet at the athletic bods and tight buns. > > > > SR what's your take on that please? > > > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 15 23:38:57 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:38:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001801d47d3c$60fd9bd0$22f8d370$@rainier66.com> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:28 PM SR Ballard > wrote: Like I said, I literally wasn?t even born yet in the period you mention (57-64), and actually neither were my parents. Which is why I have questions. I?m not implying NatGeo as dehumanizing/humanizing women, but cultures. Just like I said, do you think it had any influence on cultural relations or ethic interests etc? In the old days, NatGeo definitely did this sort of thing. They would not have gone into any part of Europe and taken photos like that, even if it was the cultural norm. The people in their features did not wear clothing, so? they recorded what they saw. If the photographers of a couple generations ago are measured by today?s cultural mores, they do poorly indeed. This makes me think of what standards we will have upon us if cryonics works and we get simulated 100 yrs in the future. What are we doing today and considering ethically acceptable which will be considered scandalous in the future? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 15 23:40:33 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:40:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] smoke in ca Message-ID: <002701d47d3c$9aa0db90$cfe292b0$@rainier66.com> California's having legalized marijuana has had an impact. We have had forest fires before, but now every time I go for a walk I get a contact buzz. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 00:26:28 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:26:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As a member of the age group this article is talking about, I 100% agree with it. I hear stories about how married couples have met, for example my parents or aunts and uncles and family friends and so on, and I?m... shocked? You know? Because what they describe in their stories is now socially unacceptable. It?s uh... an interesting time to be alive. > On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > Tara Maya wrote: > >> Smart people without children are a danger to the planet. > > If you mean the human race, you should say so. Humans are a long way > from being a danger to "the planet." Although that may not always be > the case. Accelerando by Charles Stross (an early participant of this > list) has the "vile offspring" of the human race taking the Earth > apart to build clouds of "computronium" around the sun. > >> Having children invests your interest in a human future. Having no children means you don't care if you destroy that future. That's motive. > > I read this as unjustified generalizations. Read up on Hamilton's > rule. Even people with no children have a genetic interest in the > future. According to gene testing, there are thousands of people who > share bits and pieces of my genes. > > The problem with concern about the future is called "discount rate." > How this became part of our evolved psychology is worthy of serious > study. > >> Brains gives you the means, and all that remains is opportunity to come along to invest in a future which is very hostile to human well-being. > >> I don't trust politicians with no children, especially. And if a roboticist with no children started praising some AI, I would be very suspicious. Why should I trust that he wants the kind of future in which my children can thrive? He has zero stake in it. It's even worse if his biological urge to protect the next generation has been usurped by a robot parasite. > > What is the long-term future? Do humans stay biological? Or do we > upload and become mostly machines? Do we spread into the universe or > stay where the speed of light lets us communicate? (Assuming no FTL.) > > On a less expansive scale, the Atlantic has a fascinating article > > Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex? > > Despite the easing of taboos and the rise of hookup apps, Americans > are in the midst of a sex recession. > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/ > > Long article, but worth reading to the end. Definitely related to > your concerns. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From tim at tt1.org Fri Nov 16 00:46:26 2018 From: tim at tt1.org (TimTyler) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:46:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86282a43-145b-05c5-ccd2-67b974ae3875@tt1.org> On 2018-11-15 16:54:PM, Keith Henson wrote: > The problem with concern about the future is called "discount rate." > How this became part of our evolved psychology is worthy of serious study. Alan Rogers explained that in 1994, I think. To quote from a recent post of mine: "In a now-famous paper, Alan Rogers once argued that sexual recombination was largely responsible for temporal discounting via kin selection. If people have, on average, around two kids each of which share half their genes, then at a similar point in their lives, investments in those kids are around half as valuable to a parent as investments in themselves. In the case of the kids, half of any investment by a parent would go to a bunch of unrelated genes from somebody else. If a generation is around 25 years (for women) and 30 years (for men). That results in around 2% temporal discount annually." The 1994 Rogers paper is here: http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-AER-84-460.pdf -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 16 00:49:04 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:49:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007801d47d46$2ce73680$86b5a380$@rainier66.com> > On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:54 PM, Keith Henson wrote: ... > On a less expansive scale, the Atlantic has a fascinating article > > Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex? > > Despite the easing of taboos and the rise of hookup apps, Americans > are in the midst of a sex recession. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/ > Long article, but worth reading to the end. Definitely related to your concerns. > > Keith Keith my best guess on this is twofold: there are lots of good options available now that were not there when we were that age. A long time ago... there wasn't much else to do. Now there are so many good fun interesting options. Young people realize that sex without emotional bonding isn't worth the hour of time investment. Sex with the emotional bonding is well worth the lifetime of investment. spike From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 01:02:56 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:02:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: <001801d47d3c$60fd9bd0$22f8d370$@rainier66.com> References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> <001801d47d3c$60fd9bd0$22f8d370$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: What are we doing today and considering ethically acceptable which will be considered scandalous in the future? - spike Well, basically everything? As the particular parlance today goes, ?your fave is problematic. Everything is problematic? Your fave is problematic is such a common idea that there are entire blogs devoted to it, such as: http://yourfaveisproblematic.tumblr.com/ And ?everything is problematic? goes very, very deep. You name it, I can find a call out post on it, probably with receipts and everything. https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/ As far as concrete examples? We can see some general trends. -spanking is becoming increasingly illegal -groping and other similar types of sexual harassment are more unacceptable and prosecuted -single punches / slaps / kicks are now a huge deal, sometimes ending in intense legal disputes -casual touching is less common So likely, casual touching will move into a more unacceptable direction. You might go to shake someone?s hand in 100 years and he might try to take you to court for sexual harassment. - Anarchists have been trying to say (for years now) that children are the ?next frontier? when it comes to gaining rights and removing hierarchy. Just as how women were freed from men, children should be freed from their parents. For this one, I?m more mixed? I?m not sure how this would play out. But perhaps your comments about the autonomy (or lack theirof) of children might be seen as unacceptable. In a similar vein, people are more and more defending the right of little children to decide how they act and how they dress. You might appall someone by picking an outfit for a child, or refusing to buy an outfit for them, or by attempting to correct their ?bad? behavior. Which ties in with above I suppose. -gender neutral words are on the way out in polite usage (police officer instead of policeman) -increased social acceptance of people being openly trans -rise of MOGAI https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=MOGAI&=true -more androgynous visual style This confusing heap of trends may lead to big problems? where people identify in a role or gender -you- haven?t ever heard of, and the stakes are very high if you mis-identify someone. This might lead to a highly formalized introductory culture, like the one currently developing in activist circles. Or it might lead the other way and referring to them in a gendered way at all is completely taboo. -tattoos have become common -the meaning of symbols changes overtime -body piercing are more common -?which one is the gay ear? and other piercing related signals to sexuality The meaning of symbols, and body modifications change over time. A perfectly innocent swastika became a symbol of violent hatred. Imagine having been into Hinduism, and getting a tattoo in the late 1920s and waking up in 1945... So those who have tattoos or body piercings (even if they get them removed/altered after coming to) might cause confusion or anger. -decline in marriage -decline in dating -decline in sex Even as our nation becomes more open about sex and sexuality, there seems to be less of it. Your ideas of dating, courting, partnership, marriage, and sex will likely be seen as extremely pass? and even offensively so. Attempts to imagine myself in 1920?s relationship culture probably end as well as an attempt to fit into 2120?s relationship culture. In fact, the gap will probably be wider there. Additionally, I think attitudes about work and money will be significantly different as well, but of course, in what way. I?m loathe to say, ?If present trends continue? because, well, they usually don?t. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 01:04:16 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:04:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] smoke in ca In-Reply-To: <002701d47d3c$9aa0db90$cfe292b0$@rainier66.com> References: <002701d47d3c$9aa0db90$cfe292b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <0D1229E9-496B-4D7C-8B48-4ACD08603773@gmail.com> We have had forest fires before, but now every time I go for a walk I get a contact buzz - spike I can?t decide if I find this funny or sad. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 01:15:13 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:15:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Light Interacting / Quantum Computing Message-ID: <8424A2E1-CCB4-470D-B22F-530E303F8A23@gmail.com> I nearly forgot what I originally got on my email to share with the list! Apologies if y?all have seen this/talked about it before: http://news.mit.edu/2018/physicists-create-new-form-light-0215 ?Physicists create new form of light:Newly observed optical state could enable quantum computing with photons.? Some quotes? ?But what if light particles could be made to interact, attracting and repelling each other like atoms in ordinary matter?? ?the team, led by Vladan Vuletic, the Lester Wolfe Professor of Physics at MIT, and Professor Mikhail Lukin from Harvard University, reports that it has observed groups of three photons interacting? ?While photons normally have no mass and travel at 300,000 kilometers per second (the speed of light), the researchers found that the bound photons actually acquired a fraction of an electron?s mass. These newly weighed-down light particles were also relatively sluggish, traveling about 100,000 times slower than normal noninteracting photons.? I mean, I don?t really understand the implications (other than as literally stated) but it seemed interesting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 01:41:04 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:41:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] smoke in ca In-Reply-To: <002701d47d3c$9aa0db90$cfe292b0$@rainier66.com> References: <002701d47d3c$9aa0db90$cfe292b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:40 PM, wrote: > > California?s having legalized marijuana has had an impact. We have had forest fires before, but now every time I go for a walk I get a contact buzz. Kidding aside, the smoke conditions up here (Seattle) this August led me to buy a respirator and stop hiking until the smoke cleared. (I like to hike in the mountains when they?re snow-free.) Marijuana has been legal here for recreational use for years now, and I?ve never gotten a contact high during that time. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 01:41:12 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:41:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article In-Reply-To: <007801d47d46$2ce73680$86b5a380$@rainier66.com> References: <007801d47d46$2ce73680$86b5a380$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Keith my best guess on this is twofold: there are lots of good options available now that were not there when we were that age. A long time ago... there wasn't much else to do. Now there are so many good fun interesting options. Young people realize that sex without emotional bonding isn't worth the hour of time investment. Sex with the emotional bonding is well worth the lifetime of investment. spike Age of marriage has been going up for quite a while. And second, I have seen data reporting that young people of today are more pessimistic about the future than prior generations. Certainly it is a complex subject. It is easy to say that the pendulum swings from ankle length skirts to miniskirts, conservative to liberal, but it is true. Ask a sociologist and you'll get all sorts of reasons but no definitive anything. bill w On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 7:06 PM wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:54 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: > ... > > On a less expansive scale, the Atlantic has a fascinating article > > > > Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex? > > > > Despite the easing of taboos and the rise of hookup apps, Americans > > are in the midst of a sex recession. > > > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/ > > > Long article, but worth reading to the end. Definitely related to your > concerns. > > > > Keith > > > Keith my best guess on this is twofold: there are lots of good options > available now that were not there when we were that age. A long time > ago... there wasn't much else to do. Now there are so many good fun > interesting options. Young people realize that sex without emotional > bonding isn't worth the hour of time investment. Sex with the emotional > bonding is well worth the lifetime of investment. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 01:54:58 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 19:54:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality? In-Reply-To: References: <005001d47d09$68ced4b0$3a6c7e10$@rainier66.com> <001801d47d3c$60fd9bd0$22f8d370$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I have been an advocate for children's rights for fifty years (pause for applause). A few years ago a child (age uncertain) got a legal divorce from her parents. A sign of things to come, I hope. They take dogs away from owners for fairly small owner misbehaviors compared to what children have to tolerate. I support making spanking illegal and can give you pages of reasons supported by data. The main reason, outside of its being cruel, is that it just doesn't work very well. It tends to suppress behavior, not get rid of it. It drives the behavior underground, kids finding ways to hide it, it creates a lot of resentment, and so on. Much more effective ways to create good behavior and get rid of the bad exist. If it is so effective why don't we use it on adults? thirty lashes for drunk driving? One good reason to use severe punishment: when the behavior is very dangerous to the person (like running into the street) and perhaps to others. Making it severe works and works quickly, but it doesn't last. I taught Learning for 35 years. Fantastic book, also applicable to people: Don't Shoot the Dog. By an animal trainer. bill w bill w On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 7:16 PM SR Ballard wrote: > What are we doing today and considering ethically acceptable which will be > considered scandalous in the future? - spike > > Well, basically everything? As the particular parlance today goes, ?your > fave is problematic. Everything is problematic? > > Your fave is problematic is such a common idea that there are entire blogs > devoted to it, such as: http://yourfaveisproblematic.tumblr.com/ > > And ?everything is problematic? goes very, very deep. You name it, I can > find a call out post on it, probably with receipts and everything. > > https://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/ > > As far as concrete examples? We can see some general trends. > > -spanking is becoming increasingly illegal > -groping and other similar types of sexual harassment are more > unacceptable and prosecuted > -single punches / slaps / kicks are now a huge deal, sometimes ending in > intense legal disputes > -casual touching is less common > > So likely, casual touching will move into a more unacceptable direction. > You might go to shake someone?s hand in 100 years and he might try to take > you to court for sexual harassment. > > - Anarchists have been trying to say (for years now) that children are the > ?next frontier? when it comes to gaining rights and removing hierarchy. > Just as how women were freed from men, children should be freed from their > parents. > > For this one, I?m more mixed? I?m not sure how this would play out. But > perhaps your comments about the autonomy (or lack theirof) of children > might be seen as unacceptable. > > In a similar vein, people are more and more defending the right of little > children to decide how they act and how they dress. You might appall > someone by picking an outfit for a child, or refusing to buy an outfit for > them, or by attempting to correct their ?bad? behavior. Which ties in with > above I suppose. > > -gender neutral words are on the way out in polite usage (police officer > instead of policeman) > -increased social acceptance of people being openly trans > -rise of MOGAI > https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=MOGAI&=true > -more androgynous visual style > > This confusing heap of trends may lead to big problems? where people > identify in a role or gender -you- haven?t ever heard of, and the stakes > are very high if you mis-identify someone. > > This might lead to a highly formalized introductory culture, like the one > currently developing in activist circles. Or it might lead the other way > and referring to them in a gendered way at all is completely taboo. > > -tattoos have become common > -the meaning of symbols changes overtime > -body piercing are more common > -?which one is the gay ear? and other piercing related signals to sexuality > > The meaning of symbols, and body modifications change over time. A > perfectly innocent swastika became a symbol of violent hatred. Imagine > having been into Hinduism, and getting a tattoo in the late 1920s and > waking up in 1945... > > So those who have tattoos or body piercings (even if they get them > removed/altered after coming to) might cause confusion or anger. > > -decline in marriage > -decline in dating > -decline in sex > > Even as our nation becomes more open about sex and sexuality, there seems > to be less of it. Your ideas of dating, courting, partnership, marriage, > and sex will likely be seen as extremely pass? and even offensively so. > > Attempts to imagine myself in 1920?s relationship culture probably end as > well as an attempt to fit into 2120?s relationship culture. In fact, the > gap will probably be wider there. > > Additionally, I think attitudes about work and money will be significantly > different as well, but of course, in what way. > > I?m loathe to say, ?If present trends continue? because, well, they > usually don?t. > > SR Ballard > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 16 02:05:51 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 18:05:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] smoke in ca In-Reply-To: <0D1229E9-496B-4D7C-8B48-4ACD08603773@gmail.com> References: <002701d47d3c$9aa0db90$cfe292b0$@rainier66.com> <0D1229E9-496B-4D7C-8B48-4ACD08603773@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007e01d47d50$e9244130$bb6cc390$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard Subject: Re: [ExI] smoke in ca We have had forest fires before, but now every time I go for a walk I get a contact buzz - spike I can?t decide if I find this funny or sad. SR Ballard I was trying to make light of a sad situation. Dark humor. A family I care about had a winter home in Paradise. We haven?t heard from them and still don?t know where they are. They were snowbirds, but it was early in the year for heading to Paradise, but we don?t know where they are. They aren?t on the list of people still unaccounted for. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 02:38:13 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:38:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= Message-ID: > On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I have been an advocate for children's rights for fifty years (pause for applause). > > A few years ago a child (age uncertain) got a legal divorce from her parents. A sign of things to come, I hope. How I feel about the issue largely depends on age. I don?t think a small child can be responsible for themselves, and I?m sure you?d agree that there?s not a firm line, but there?s a point where someone is going to be ?too young?. > They take dogs away from owners for fairly small owner misbehaviors compared to what children have to tolerate. Well, we also euthanize dogs, but not children. While the two have been compared, especially now that couples are viewing pets as ?starter? children, or a replacement for children, they?re not a particularly good parallel in my opinion. For example we never force our children to breed, and especially not with their own children. We don?t send them to war to be shot and blown up. We don?t sterilize them. And so on. I also tend to think that falsely separating dogs from owners is a lesser offense that falsely separating children from their parents. But to be honest, what action would get a dog removed but is not grounds for removing a child? Being outside without shelter? Illegal tethering? Viscous beating? Biting the mailman? Medical neglect? > I support making spanking illegal and can give you pages of reasons supported by data. The main reason, outside of its being cruel, is that it just doesn't work very well. It tends to suppress behavior, not get rid of it. It drives the behavior underground, kids finding ways to hide it, it creates a lot of resentment, and so on. Much more effective ways to create good behavior and get rid of the bad exist. If it is so effective why don't we use it on adults? thirty lashes for drunk driving? I don?t think it?s terribly effective either, purely based on anecdotal evidence. I didn?t understand why I was being spanked, basically ever. And further than that, many parents say they?re spanking their children when really they?re just beating the snot out of them. As we move away from a physically violent culture I imagine the acceptability will steadily decline. And you can find many, many people who would be okay with the public lashes, and would applaud them. I oppose mostly based on sanitary grounds. If I?m bleeding and the last guy was bleeding then I?ll probably get some disease, and the uptick in healthcare costs are just not worth it. But is a parent punishing a child analogous to the state punishing a person? Or should the analogy be made of the parent hitting the child is like being beaten by a stranger for doing something displeasing? Wouldn?t a child getting lashes for rolling their eyes be more in-line with the ?aggressive stranger? than an ?established violation of authority?? - But having two groups of friends: very ?hard? leftists and very religious Mormons, this is one of those issues where I don?t really know where I stand. What rights should children have, and when? One group of my friends would say ?all the rights all the time? and the other would say ?none of the rights until adulthood? but clearly the answer is somewhere in between. I?m just not sure how to figure out where it should be. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 02:41:00 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:41:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] smoke in ca In-Reply-To: <007e01d47d50$e9244130$bb6cc390$@rainier66.com> References: <002701d47d3c$9aa0db90$cfe292b0$@rainier66.com> <0D1229E9-496B-4D7C-8B48-4ACD08603773@gmail.com> <007e01d47d50$e9244130$bb6cc390$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <2B236F03-9B30-49F0-9D4A-F28EE139EF01@gmail.com> > A family I care about had a winter home in Paradise. We haven?t heard from them and still don?t know where they are. > > spike I hope you hear from them soon. It was difficult waiting to hear from my parents a while back during the hurricane in Florida, and also waiting for all my friends to check in on Facebook. I understand the feeling. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 09:14:45 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 03:14:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book Message-ID: In his spare time, a lay person researches the most accurate publically-available book on the bombs dropped on Japan. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/atomic-john The book?s simply called ?Atomic Bombs?. Just goes to show that with diligence you can teach yourself anything? even government secrets. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 13:45:16 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:45:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:00 PM Keith Henson wrote: > *What is the long-term future? Do humans stay biological? * Not if they hope to survive. > *Or do we upload and become mostly machines?* Long term I don't see any alternative except oblivion. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 13:54:25 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:54:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM BillK wrote: > *even the uttering of unpopular opinions is becoming a very risky > action.* As this very list has demonstrated on more than one occasion. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 16 14:54:18 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 06:54:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 1:15 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In his spare time, a lay person researches the most accurate publically-available book on the bombs dropped on Japan. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/atomic-john The book?s simply called ?Atomic Bombs?. Just goes to show that with diligence you can teach yourself anything? even government secrets. A lot of that is declassified now. Typically 50 years is long enough to keep that stuff secret. If one is really interested in this topic, I do highly recommend Richard Rhodes? excellent ?Making of the Atomic Bomb? for he really did his homework on that one. Lotsa physics in there but it is not out of reach of the non-geek. He really put a lot of the heart and soul into that story. Feynman has also written a lot about that episode of history. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 15:13:38 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:13:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem HELP - LAWYER In-Reply-To: References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > A person is not free to say just anything, the old standard being > yelling FIRE in a movie theater. > Some people seem to think a corollary to the right to say anything is the right to make everybody listen as would happen when somebody shouted anything in a quiet movie theater; but I think "fire" is the only thing you do have a right to shout in a movie theater, and then only if there is a fire. It's interesting to trace the history of that fire in the theater metaphor, it comes from a decision written in 1919 by Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes and involved those who spoke out against the draft during the first world war. Holmes was on the Supreme Court for 30 years and near the end of his life said that was the single worst decision he ever made during his entire career as a judge. But the saying lives on. > > Unfortunately for us liberals, the ultra liberal crowd makes big noises > about offending. > I agree, the conservatives have a fetish about the Second Amendment, I think the liberals should have a fetish for something far more important, the First Amendment. By the way, what is it that conservatives are trying to conserve? It's certainly not money as government debt has exploded over the last 2 years. It's certainly not the environment as they're dismantling pollution regulations as fast as they can. It's certainly not personal freedom as self styled conservatives want to change the libel laws so they can stop people from printing unflattering articles about the current presadent and think women should be punished if they have a abortion and nobody should have the right to smoke a cigarette unless its made of tobacco and nothing else. A conservative doesn't even want to conserve the traditional way of doing things. Our new Attorney General, the one with the looks but not the brains of Lex Luthor, thinks the judiciary is the inferior branch of government and thinks we should change something that goes all the way back to 1803, he thinks the Supreme Court made a error in Marbury v. Madison, that was the first time the court ruled that an act of congress was unconstitutional. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 15:32:39 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:32:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't know the circumstances of the kid who divorced his/her parents. Obviously that is a huge step. 99% of the cases would be resolved by putting the kid in a foster home, I think. If we went by brain maturation, people would not be allowed to vote until age 25, so we are going to have to look at each right in context. If we are moving away from a physically violent culture I'd like to see the data. (yes, don't send me a link to Pinker's book - that's worldwide and we are talking about individuals) bill w On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:43 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > I have been an advocate for children's rights for fifty years (pause for > applause). > > A few years ago a child (age uncertain) got a legal divorce from her > parents. A sign of things to come, I hope. > > > How I feel about the issue largely depends on age. I don?t think a small > child can be responsible for themselves, and I?m sure you?d agree that > there?s not a firm line, but there?s a point where someone is going to be > ?too young?. > > They take dogs away from owners for fairly small owner misbehaviors > compared to what children have to tolerate. > > > Well, we also euthanize dogs, but not children. While the two have been > compared, especially now that couples are viewing pets as ?starter? > children, or a replacement for children, they?re not a particularly good > parallel in my opinion. > > For example we never force our children to breed, and especially not with > their own children. We don?t send them to war to be shot and blown up. We > don?t sterilize them. And so on. > > I also tend to think that falsely separating dogs from owners is a lesser > offense that falsely separating children from their parents. > > But to be honest, what action would get a dog removed but is not grounds > for removing a child? Being outside without shelter? Illegal tethering? > Viscous beating? Biting the mailman? Medical neglect? > > I support making spanking illegal and can give you pages of reasons > supported by data. The main reason, outside of its being cruel, is that it > just doesn't work very well. It tends to suppress behavior, not get rid of > it. It drives the behavior underground, kids finding ways to hide it, it > creates a lot of resentment, and so on. Much more effective ways to create > good behavior and get rid of the bad exist. If it is so effective why > don't we use it on adults? thirty lashes for drunk driving? > > > I don?t think it?s terribly effective either, purely based on anecdotal > evidence. I didn?t understand why I was being spanked, basically ever. > > And further than that, many parents say they?re spanking their children > when really they?re just beating the snot out of them. As we move away from > a physically violent culture I imagine the acceptability will steadily > decline. > > And you can find many, many people who would be okay with the public > lashes, and would applaud them. I oppose mostly based on sanitary grounds. > If I?m bleeding and the last guy was bleeding then I?ll probably get some > disease, and the uptick in healthcare costs are just not worth it. > > But is a parent punishing a child analogous to the state punishing a > person? Or should the analogy be made of the parent hitting the child is > like being beaten by a stranger for doing something displeasing? > > Wouldn?t a child getting lashes for rolling their eyes be more in-line > with the ?aggressive stranger? than an ?established violation of authority?? > > - > > But having two groups of friends: very ?hard? leftists and very religious > Mormons, this is one of those issues where I don?t really know where I > stand. What rights should children have, and when? One group of my friends > would say ?all the rights all the time? and the other would say ?none of > the rights until adulthood? but clearly the answer is somewhere in between. > I?m just not sure how to figure out where it should be. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Nov 16 15:35:59 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:35:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem HELP - LAWYER In-Reply-To: References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: By the way, what is it that conservatives are trying to conserve? john clark I think it's the greatest irony - what conservatives are trying to conserve, if you believe that they want strict interpretations of the Constitution, are the liberal principles stated there and in the Bill of Rights. bill w On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:19 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > A person is not free to say just anything, the old standard being >> yelling FIRE in a movie theater. >> > > Some people seem to think a corollary to the right to say anything is the > right to make everybody listen as would happen when somebody shouted > anything in a quiet movie theater; but I think "fire" is the only thing you > do have a right to shout in a movie theater, and then only if there is a > fire. > > It's interesting to trace the history of that fire in the theater > metaphor, it comes > from a decision written in 1919 by Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes and > involved those who spoke out against the draft during the first world war. > Holmes was on the Supreme Court for 30 years and near the end of his life > said that was the single worst decision he ever made during his entire > career as a judge. > But the saying lives on. > > > >> > Unfortunately for us liberals, the ultra liberal crowd makes big >> noises about offending. >> > > I agree, the conservatives have a fetish about the Second Amendment, I > think the liberals should have a fetish for something far more important, > the First Amendment. > > By the way, what is it that conservatives are trying to conserve? It's > certainly not money as government debt has exploded over the last 2 years. > It's certainly not the environment as they're dismantling pollution > regulations as fast as they can. It's certainly not personal freedom as > self styled conservatives want to change the libel laws so they can stop > people from printing unflattering articles about the current presadent and > think women should be punished if they have a abortion and nobody should > have the right to smoke a cigarette unless its made of tobacco and nothing > else. > > A conservative doesn't even want to conserve the traditional way of doing > things. Our new Attorney General, the one with the looks but not the brains > of Lex Luthor, thinks the judiciary is the inferior branch of government > and thinks we should change something that goes all the way back to 1803, > he thinks the Supreme Court made a error in Marbury v. Madison, that was > the first time the court ruled that an act of congress was unconstitutional. > > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 15:40:40 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:40:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86AC52DB-55D1-4816-9B8C-4A05A14E0A3A@gmail.com> > If we are moving away from a physically violent culture I'd like to see the data. (yes, don't send me a link to Pinker's book - that's worldwide and we are talking about individuals) > > bill w I?m not even sure how to provide data on something for that, since it?s based on changing cultural perceptions. For example what I got away with doing at school versus what it seems like the consequences now are for those same actions. SR Ballard >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:43 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >>> On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> I have been an advocate for children's rights for fifty years (pause for applause). >>> >>> A few years ago a child (age uncertain) got a legal divorce from her parents. A sign of things to come, I hope. >> >> How I feel about the issue largely depends on age. I don?t think a small child can be responsible for themselves, and I?m sure you?d agree that there?s not a firm line, but there?s a point where someone is going to be ?too young?. >> >>> They take dogs away from owners for fairly small owner misbehaviors compared to what children have to tolerate. >> >> Well, we also euthanize dogs, but not children. While the two have been compared, especially now that couples are viewing pets as ?starter? children, or a replacement for children, they?re not a particularly good parallel in my opinion. >> >> For example we never force our children to breed, and especially not with their own children. We don?t send them to war to be shot and blown up. We don?t sterilize them. And so on. >> >> I also tend to think that falsely separating dogs from owners is a lesser offense that falsely separating children from their parents. >> >> But to be honest, what action would get a dog removed but is not grounds for removing a child? Being outside without shelter? Illegal tethering? Viscous beating? Biting the mailman? Medical neglect? >> >>> I support making spanking illegal and can give you pages of reasons supported by data. The main reason, outside of its being cruel, is that it just doesn't work very well. It tends to suppress behavior, not get rid of it. It drives the behavior underground, kids finding ways to hide it, it creates a lot of resentment, and so on. Much more effective ways to create good behavior and get rid of the bad exist. If it is so effective why don't we use it on adults? thirty lashes for drunk driving? >> >> I don?t think it?s terribly effective either, purely based on anecdotal evidence. I didn?t understand why I was being spanked, basically ever. >> >> And further than that, many parents say they?re spanking their children when really they?re just beating the snot out of them. As we move away from a physically violent culture I imagine the acceptability will steadily decline. >> >> And you can find many, many people who would be okay with the public lashes, and would applaud them. I oppose mostly based on sanitary grounds. If I?m bleeding and the last guy was bleeding then I?ll probably get some disease, and the uptick in healthcare costs are just not worth it. >> >> But is a parent punishing a child analogous to the state punishing a person? Or should the analogy be made of the parent hitting the child is like being beaten by a stranger for doing something displeasing? >> >> Wouldn?t a child getting lashes for rolling their eyes be more in-line with the ?aggressive stranger? than an ?established violation of authority?? >> >> - >> >> But having two groups of friends: very ?hard? leftists and very religious Mormons, this is one of those issues where I don?t really know where I stand. What rights should children have, and when? One group of my friends would say ?all the rights all the time? and the other would say ?none of the rights until adulthood? but clearly the answer is somewhere in between. I?m just not sure how to figure out where it should be. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Nov 16 16:53:12 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:53:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= In-Reply-To: <86AC52DB-55D1-4816-9B8C-4A05A14E0A3A@gmail.com> References: <86AC52DB-55D1-4816-9B8C-4A05A14E0A3A@gmail.com> Message-ID: If it's about racism or harassment, that's true. bill w On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:59 AM SR Ballard wrote: > > If we are moving away from a physically violent culture I'd like to see > the data. (yes, don't send me a link to Pinker's book - that's worldwide > and we are talking about individuals) > > bill w > > > I?m not even sure how to provide data on something for that, since it?s > based on changing cultural perceptions. > > For example what I got away with doing at school versus what it seems like > the consequences now are for those same actions. > > SR Ballard > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:43 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> >> On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace >> wrote: >> >> I have been an advocate for children's rights for fifty years (pause for >> applause). >> >> A few years ago a child (age uncertain) got a legal divorce from her >> parents. A sign of things to come, I hope. >> >> >> How I feel about the issue largely depends on age. I don?t think a small >> child can be responsible for themselves, and I?m sure you?d agree that >> there?s not a firm line, but there?s a point where someone is going to be >> ?too young?. >> >> They take dogs away from owners for fairly small owner misbehaviors >> compared to what children have to tolerate. >> >> >> Well, we also euthanize dogs, but not children. While the two have been >> compared, especially now that couples are viewing pets as ?starter? >> children, or a replacement for children, they?re not a particularly good >> parallel in my opinion. >> >> For example we never force our children to breed, and especially not with >> their own children. We don?t send them to war to be shot and blown up. We >> don?t sterilize them. And so on. >> >> I also tend to think that falsely separating dogs from owners is a lesser >> offense that falsely separating children from their parents. >> >> But to be honest, what action would get a dog removed but is not grounds >> for removing a child? Being outside without shelter? Illegal tethering? >> Viscous beating? Biting the mailman? Medical neglect? >> >> I support making spanking illegal and can give you pages of reasons >> supported by data. The main reason, outside of its being cruel, is that it >> just doesn't work very well. It tends to suppress behavior, not get rid of >> it. It drives the behavior underground, kids finding ways to hide it, it >> creates a lot of resentment, and so on. Much more effective ways to create >> good behavior and get rid of the bad exist. If it is so effective why >> don't we use it on adults? thirty lashes for drunk driving? >> >> >> I don?t think it?s terribly effective either, purely based on anecdotal >> evidence. I didn?t understand why I was being spanked, basically ever. >> >> And further than that, many parents say they?re spanking their children >> when really they?re just beating the snot out of them. As we move away from >> a physically violent culture I imagine the acceptability will steadily >> decline. >> >> And you can find many, many people who would be okay with the public >> lashes, and would applaud them. I oppose mostly based on sanitary grounds. >> If I?m bleeding and the last guy was bleeding then I?ll probably get some >> disease, and the uptick in healthcare costs are just not worth it. >> >> But is a parent punishing a child analogous to the state punishing a >> person? Or should the analogy be made of the parent hitting the child is >> like being beaten by a stranger for doing something displeasing? >> >> Wouldn?t a child getting lashes for rolling their eyes be more in-line >> with the ?aggressive stranger? than an ?established violation of authority?? >> >> - >> >> But having two groups of friends: very ?hard? leftists and very religious >> Mormons, this is one of those issues where I don?t really know where I >> stand. What rights should children have, and when? One group of my friends >> would say ?all the rights all the time? and the other would say ?none of >> the rights until adulthood? but clearly the answer is somewhere in between. >> I?m just not sure how to figure out where it should be. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 16:57:56 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:57:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Gene drift and Atlantic article Message-ID: wrote:" >> ... Accelerando...has the "vile offspring" of the human race taking the Earth apart to build clouds of "computronium" around the sun... Keith >Keith when you state it like that, it almost makes it sound like a bad thing. That's Stross talking, not me. I presume everyone has read _Accelerando_. There is no excuse not to since Charles has it up on the web for free. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando.html The background follows the mostly lost content of the early days of this mailing list wrapped in a fictional form. I did that with "The Clinic Seed," which ends with the human race biologically extinct from a surfeit of good medical care. It is at least one of the logical outcomes, as could happen as an outcome of optimal sex machines. That's another topic Stross played with in _Saturn's Children_. Plot (from Wikipedia) "The novel chronicles the travels and perils of Freya Nakamichi-47, a gynoid in a distant future in which humanity is extinct and a near-feudal android society has spread throughout the Solar System." As to humanity's real future, who knows? It's subject to unexpected side effects of technology interacting with evolved human psychology. I should report on a Sam Wineburg lecture held at SDSU yesterday. You can get a bit of the flavor from here: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/09/why-learn-history-sam-wineburg-history-class-failing.html There is appalling information about Twitter I have to verify before repeating it. Background here: https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20181107.aspx Keith From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 16 17:03:49 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:03:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= In-Reply-To: <86AC52DB-55D1-4816-9B8C-4A05A14E0A3A@gmail.com> References: <86AC52DB-55D1-4816-9B8C-4A05A14E0A3A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004101d47dce$588fc8a0$09af59e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard Subject: Re: [ExI] Children?s Rights If we are moving away from a physically violent culture I'd like to see the data. (yes, don't send me a link to Pinker's book - that's worldwide and we are talking about individuals) bill w >?I?m not even sure how to provide data on something for that, since it?s based on changing cultural perceptions. >?For example what I got away with doing at school versus what it seems like the consequences now are for those same actions. >?SR Ballard The kinds of data we might be able to get would be suspensions from school for fighting. We realize that any little scuffle is now classified as a fight, whereas back in my day (imagine voice characteristics of the two wisecracking geezers in the balcony from the Muppet Show) a full on balled fist punch fest was a minor scuffle, so long as it failed to meet at least one of three criteria: at least one broken bone, at least one lost tooth or at least one drop of blood on the ground. Without meeting something on that short list, no score. If the combatants were female, then torn clothing could qualify (the girls tended to tear off each others? clothing rather than honest fisticuffs, which always drew a huge enthusiastic audience. If the combatants were approximately the same size, no disciplinary action was necessary. Unfortunate for the victim: in the case of a criminal assault, generally both the miscreant and the victim were charged as equal combatants in the case of an unprovoked attack. Usually aggressor and victim shared the same punishment (gory details available on request.) Those kinds of fights happened with a frequency of every few weeks while I was in the lower grades. Now: poof! Gone. This is a great surprise to me that such a problem I long considered ordinary human nature underwent such fundamental change. We can get records of school suspensions if you know how to get to them (which are public domain in California if the punishment includes an invitation to leave the campus for 3 or more days.) My son went thru kindergarten thru 6th grade at the same school. In that entire time, he never witnessed even a scuffle. I personally was involved in three of these, and I am a very peaceful sort. In the seven years he was at that school, there was exactly one suspension, and this was for a fight that occurred off campus with no third party witnesses! (Why the hell the school thought it needed to be involved in that is a mystery to me.) Somehow? schools figured out how to get boys to stop fighting. Had they even asked me before I witnessed it, I would have offered incorrect advice: forget it, fighting is human nature, you can?t change it, let em fight, sweep up the debris afterwards. I was wrong: they changed that. Any speculations please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Nov 16 17:35:49 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 09:35:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] End Game (was Gene drift) Message-ID: <7c2f2c08371d9b1174cae2f2e27d581a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Keith Henson wrote: > What is the long-term future? According to my calculations based on the FLRW metric, there is a net outflow of matter from our causal cell. What this means is that unless new matter is somehow formed, there will come a time when the only matter in our causal cell are black holes, dark matter, and virtual particles. Biological organisms are largely chemically-stored solar energy. When the last star fades, there will be no way for our causal cell to sustain biological life. Intelligent machines however might be able to sustain themselves by extracting energy from the rotation of black holes and perhaps from creating and harvesting Hawking radiation from miniature black holes. But the reign of wet carbon will be over. > Do humans stay biological? Or do we > upload and become mostly machines? John is right. Long term, there will be no choice. > Do we spread into the universe or stay > where the speed of light lets us communicate? (Assuming no FTL.) If we manage to survive, then chances are we will have done both. There will likely be increasingly impractical attempts at centralized government for the expanding interstellar Human or Post-human Empire but fragmentation and diaspora will be inevitable in the long term. But that will be a good thing, because if we can spread ourselves far enough fast enough, then we will be nearly extinction-proof until the black holes themselves have evaporated away. But our window to colonize other galaxies is closing fast. At some point, without FTL we will become trapped in our local group of galaxies. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 17:44:28 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:44:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= In-Reply-To: <004101d47dce$588fc8a0$09af59e0$@rainier66.com> References: <86AC52DB-55D1-4816-9B8C-4A05A14E0A3A@gmail.com> <004101d47dce$588fc8a0$09af59e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Any speculations please? spike It turns out that there 'cultures' created by children - I don't know how many - ask a sociologist or developmental psychologist. There are all sorts of rules as to what is appropriate and what isn't. And they may be passed on to the next class by observation. So a 7th grader leaves the grammar school culture and enters the prehigh school culture. The language is different. The attitude towards the other sex is different, and so on. Unfortunately they pass on a lot of false information, particularly about sex. You simply would not believe what my college kids believed, or at least were exposed to, as they told me. To the topic of violence, perhaps they changed the culture. The school may have had an influence, but mainly they did it themselves. Outside influences from teachers and parents particularly unwelcome. Girls did it as well as boys. What was in or what was out was determined by the leaders in the class. Wear the wrong thing and you were exiled and shunned. You need a developmental psychologist for this and I am not one. bill w On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:21 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *SR Ballard > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Children?s Rights > > > > > > If we are moving away from a physically violent culture I'd like to see > the data. (yes, don't send me a link to Pinker's book - that's worldwide > and we are talking about individuals) > > > > bill w > > > > >?I?m not even sure how to provide data on something for that, since it?s > based on changing cultural perceptions. > > > > >?For example what I got away with doing at school versus what it seems > like the consequences now are for those same actions. > > > > >?SR Ballard > > > > > > > > The kinds of data we might be able to get would be suspensions from school > for fighting. We realize that any little scuffle is now classified as a > fight, whereas back in my day (imagine voice characteristics of the two > wisecracking geezers in the balcony from the Muppet Show) a full on balled > fist punch fest was a minor scuffle, so long as it failed to meet at least > one of three criteria: at least one broken bone, at least one lost tooth or > at least one drop of blood on the ground. Without meeting something on > that short list, no score. > > > > If the combatants were female, then torn clothing could qualify (the girls > tended to tear off each others? clothing rather than honest fisticuffs, > which always drew a huge enthusiastic audience. If the combatants were > approximately the same size, no disciplinary action was necessary. > > > > Unfortunate for the victim: in the case of a criminal assault, generally > both the miscreant and the victim were charged as equal combatants in the > case of an unprovoked attack. Usually aggressor and victim shared the same > punishment (gory details available on request.) > > > > Those kinds of fights happened with a frequency of every few weeks while I > was in the lower grades. > > > > Now: poof! Gone. This is a great surprise to me that such a problem I > long considered ordinary human nature underwent such fundamental change. > > > > We can get records of school suspensions if you know how to get to them > (which are public domain in California if the punishment includes an > invitation to leave the campus for 3 or more days.) > > > > My son went thru kindergarten thru 6th grade at the same school. In that > entire time, he never witnessed even a scuffle. I personally was involved > in three of these, and I am a very peaceful sort. In the seven years he > was at that school, there was exactly one suspension, and this was for a > fight that occurred off campus with no third party witnesses! (Why the > hell the school thought it needed to be involved in that is a mystery to > me.) > > > > Somehow? schools figured out how to get boys to stop fighting. Had they > even asked me before I witnessed it, I would have offered incorrect advice: > forget it, fighting is human nature, you can?t change it, let em fight, > sweep up the debris afterwards. I was wrong: they changed that. > > > > Any speculations please? > > > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 17:51:04 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:51:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] End Game (was Gene drift) In-Reply-To: <7c2f2c08371d9b1174cae2f2e27d581a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <7c2f2c08371d9b1174cae2f2e27d581a.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: But our window to colonize other galaxies is closing fast. At some point, without FTL we will become trapped in our local group of galaxies. Stuart LaForge Some theories say that we are creating new universes all the time (which theories I dunno). Perhaps we will find a way to enter them. bill w On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 11:41 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > > > What is the long-term future? > > According to my calculations based on the FLRW metric, there is a net > outflow of matter from our causal cell. What this means is that unless new > matter is somehow formed, there will come a time when the only matter in > our causal cell are black holes, dark matter, and virtual particles. > > Biological organisms are largely chemically-stored solar energy. When the > last star fades, there will be no way for our causal cell to sustain > biological life. Intelligent machines however might be able to sustain > themselves by extracting energy from the rotation of black holes and > perhaps from creating and harvesting Hawking radiation from miniature > black holes. > > But the reign of wet carbon will be over. > > > Do humans stay biological? Or do we > > upload and become mostly machines? > > John is right. Long term, there will be no choice. > > > Do we spread into the universe or stay > > where the speed of light lets us communicate? (Assuming no FTL.) > > If we manage to survive, then chances are we will have done both. There > will likely be increasingly impractical attempts at centralized government > for the expanding interstellar Human or Post-human Empire but > fragmentation and diaspora will be inevitable in the long term. > > But that will be a good thing, because if we can spread ourselves far > enough fast enough, then we will be nearly extinction-proof until the > black holes themselves have evaporated away. But our window to colonize > other galaxies is closing fast. At some point, without FTL we will become > trapped in our local group of galaxies. > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 18:07:50 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 13:07:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:43 PM SR Ballard wrote: > On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > They take dogs away from owners for fairly small owner misbehaviors > compared to what children have to tolerate. > > Well, we also euthanize dogs, but not children. While the two have been > compared, especially now that couples are viewing pets as ?starter? > children, or a replacement for children, they?re not a particularly good > parallel in my opinion. > As practice for parenting, pets are probably the best thing going. They require constant care: feeding, training, medical attention, hygiene, etc. If you can't keep a pet, you're going to have trouble raising a child. Better to find that our before you become a parent. For example we never force our children to breed, and especially not with > their own children. > Most pet owners aren't breeders. We don?t send them to war to be shot and blown up. > Oh really? > We don?t sterilize them. And so on. > Yeah, sure, pets aren't people. But their use in training parents is no less valuable. I also tend to think that falsely separating dogs from owners is a lesser > offense that falsely separating children from their parents. > What is "falsely separating"? But having two groups of friends: very ?hard? leftists and very religious > Mormons, this is one of those issues where I don?t really know where I > stand. What rights should children have, and when? One group of my friends > would say ?all the rights all the time? and the other would say ?none of > the rights until adulthood? but clearly the answer is somewhere in between. > I?m just not sure how to figure out where it should be. > Religious indoctrination is one of the worst forms of child abuse. But I don't see that being addressed any time soon. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Nov 16 18:19:52 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:19:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Children's Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b33bf9e79b0616e7987d9f89b7244cb.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Spike wrote: > Somehow schools figured out how to get boys to stop fighting. Had they > even asked me before I witnessed it, I would have offered incorrect > advice: forget it, fighting is human nature, you can?t change it, let em > fight, sweep up the debris afterwards. I was wrong: they changed that. > Any speculations please? I think it is largely due to to two fairly recent developments that are quite different from the schools of our youth. 1. The widespread adoption of zero tolerance policies regarding school bullying and violence. It is so strict that I have seen a brother and sister suspended for slapping each other at school like they do on a daily basis at home. 2. The establishment of dedicated school police who treat every assault or violent act as criminal and who supersede the authority of school administrators to forgive minor infractions. So in other words, doing stuff that got us a yelled at back in our day get the kids of today suspended. And stuff that got us suspended back then, get today's kids a stay in juvenile detention. Stuart LaForge Stuart LaForge From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 20:58:29 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 14:58:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Children=E2=80=99s_Rights?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > what is ?falsely separating?? A false positive. That is, it seems that abuse has occurred, however in truth it did not. If you are mistaken about a man beating his dog and take it from him, that?s one thing, but taking a child is different. > we don?t send children to fight and die? No, I cannot tell you the last time I heard of an 8 year old Marine being blown up by an IED. Because I?ve never heard of an 8 year old Marine. If we?re putting 17 year olds as children, then yes, I?ve heard of that. But not a 16 year old, or any younger than that. SR Ballard > On Nov 16, 2018, at 12:07 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 9:43 PM SR Ballard wrote: >>> On Nov 15, 2018, at 7:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> They take dogs away from owners for fairly small owner misbehaviors compared to what children have to tolerate. >> Well, we also euthanize dogs, but not children. While the two have been compared, especially now that couples are viewing pets as ?starter? children, or a replacement for children, they?re not a particularly good parallel in my opinion. > > As practice for parenting, pets are probably the best thing going. They require constant care: feeding, training, medical attention, hygiene, etc. If you can't keep a pet, you're going to have trouble raising a child. Better to find that our before you become a parent. > >> For example we never force our children to breed, and especially not with their own children. > > Most pet owners aren't breeders. > >> We don?t send them to war to be shot and blown up. > > Oh really? > >> We don?t sterilize them. And so on. > > Yeah, sure, pets aren't people. But their use in training parents is no less valuable. > >> I also tend to think that falsely separating dogs from owners is a lesser offense that falsely separating children from their parents. > > What is "falsely separating"? > >> But having two groups of friends: very ?hard? leftists and very religious Mormons, this is one of those issues where I don?t really know where I stand. What rights should children have, and when? One group of my friends would say ?all the rights all the time? and the other would say ?none of the rights until adulthood? but clearly the answer is somewhere in between. I?m just not sure how to figure out where it should be. > > Religious indoctrination is one of the worst forms of child abuse. But I don't see that being addressed any time soon. > > -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 danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Nov 16 21:40:34 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 13:40:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Hemimastigotes Message-ID: <0B54A6F5-39E8-40D2-8220-B32E5DD6289D@gmail.com> https://phys.org/news/2018-11-hemimastigotes-major-evolutionary-tree-life.html I was hoping a ?new? non-eukaryotic branch, but I?ll buy whatever they?re selling. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 00:36:16 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 16:36:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] 536 famine Message-ID: I have talked about this before. There is new work published. One of the wildcards for humans is volcano-induced famine. It could happen again, there is currently considerable concern about a possible eruption in Italy. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 03:18:34 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:18:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 536 famine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 7:42 PM Keith Henson wrote: > One of the wildcards for humans is volcano-induced famine. It could > happen > again, there is currently considerable concern about a possible > eruption in Italy. > I worry about lake Toba ( formally Mount Toba) in Indonesia which blew up 74,000 years ago, it was the largest volcanic eruption in the last 2 millions years. But humanity survived, although I'm sure it wasn't much fun for those around at the time. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 12:06:50 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 12:06:50 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 19:16, BillK wrote: > At private parties or discussions everyone carries a smartphone and is > continually playing with it. And in Illinois ---- Quote: November 15, 2018 Prosecution lawyers for an Illinois school district have decided not to move forward with their case against Paul Boron, who was charged with felony eavesdropping at age 13 for recording audio of a meeting with his middle school principal. Terri Miller, president of the nonprofit Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation, thought the district was wrong to bring the charge due to the chilling effect on students seeking to expose wrongdoing. ?What child is going to come forward and try the same thing?? she said after being notified of Boron?s case. ?It will have a deterrent effect on children to report, to speak up when something is wrong.? Further, First Amendment advocates and other legal experts think the state?s eavesdropping law could be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. --------------- We had better be on our best behaviour at all times! All that continual niceness will be rather exhausting. :) BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 17 14:27:17 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 06:27:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002b01d47e81$a4f83d40$eee8b7c0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] Transparent Society problem On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 19:16, BillK wrote: > At private parties or discussions everyone carries a smartphone and is > continually playing with it. And in Illinois ---- Further, First Amendment advocates and other legal experts think the state?s eavesdropping law could be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge. --------------- We had better be on our best behaviour at all times! All that continual niceness will be rather exhausting. :) BillK _______________________________________________ Good for them, and well done indeed, First Amendment jockeys. I am with you all the way. Reasoning: we must accept and embrace the notion that we are living in an age of increasing transparency and accountability. We have free speech; we cannot be prosecuted for what we say, in public or in private. With that right comes responsibility and accountability. People have digital recorders. My own doctor wears a Google Glass during my checkup, so everything I said and the video of my nekkid butt is all digitally recorded. She asked if I minded her using it; I clearly advocated the use of digital tech: it protects all parties, at the expense of privacy. I am an openness kind of guy. It was one of the few things Julian Assange and I agreed upon back in the old days: sunshine is the best disinfectant. spike From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 17 16:21:58 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:21:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] camp fire: was RE: Transparent Society problem Message-ID: <001301d47e91$aa9a8cc0$ffcfa640$@rainier66.com> --------------- _______________________________________________ Everybody sees everything always. We are reading all about the catastrophic fires in Paradise CA. I have some friends with a snowbird nest there, but usually they don't fly south until Thanksgiving. Their place up on Whidbey Island Washington is off grid and they have no internet presence up there, but they do in California. They haven't posted, so I assumed they were still up in Washington. The news had a list of the unaccounted; I was feeling better as it got down to about 100 people and my friends were not on the list. Now they are claiming there are over 1000 unaccounted for. I ask please: how the hell can the unaccounted go from 100 to 1000? Who is making these lists? Where were the other 900 who are now unaccounted? Why is the list of 1000 not available online when the list of 100 was? Anyone know where to find a list of the 1000? So now we have a new problem: we have all this public-domain information with no way to know if it is accurate. We know sometimes when it is inaccurate: we find all kinds of contradictory news stories. We are left hoping this 1000 count is way wrong. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 17:01:42 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 17:01:42 +0000 Subject: [ExI] camp fire: was RE: Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: <001301d47e91$aa9a8cc0$ffcfa640$@rainier66.com> References: <001301d47e91$aa9a8cc0$ffcfa640$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 16:27, spike wrote: > We are reading all about the catastrophic fires in Paradise CA. I have some friends with a snowbird nest there, but usually they don't fly south until Thanksgiving. Their place up on Whidbey Island Washington is off grid and they have no internet presence up there, but they do in California. They haven't posted, so I assumed they were still up in Washington. The news had a list of the unaccounted; I was feeling better as it got down to about 100 people and my friends were not on the list. > > Now they are claiming there are over 1000 unaccounted for. I ask please: how the hell can the unaccounted go from 100 to 1000? Who is making these lists? Where were the other 900 who are now unaccounted? Why is the list of 1000 not available online when the list of 100 was? Anyone know where to find a list of the 1000? > > So now we have a new problem: we have all this public-domain information with no way to know if it is accurate. We know sometimes when it is inaccurate: we find all kinds of contradictory news stories. We are left hoping this 1000 count is way wrong. > This article seems to explain where the numbers come from (and say not to worry). Quote: The number of people unaccounted for grew from 631 on Thursday night to more than 1,000 on Friday, but Sheriff Kory Honea said the list was dynamic and could easily contain duplicate names and unreliable spellings of names. He said the roster probably includes some who fled the blaze and do not realize they?ve been reported missing. Authorities compiled the list by going back to listen to all the dispatch calls they received since the fire started, to make sure they didn?t miss anyone. -------- BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 17 17:37:03 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:37:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] camp fire: was RE: Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: References: <001301d47e91$aa9a8cc0$ffcfa640$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003001d47e9c$2760cbc0$76226340$@rainier66.com> >>...[Stross wrote] "The Clinic Seed," ... the human race biologically extinct... as an outcome of optimal sex machines... Keith Hey, now there's a terrific name for a rock band. A bit of levity is appropriate in a difficult situation. >...https://www.680news.com/2018/11/16/california-wildfires-update-missing/ Quote: >...The number of people unaccounted for grew from 631 on Thursday night to more than 1,000 on Friday, but Sheriff Kory Honea said the list was dynamic and could easily contain duplicate names and unreliable spellings of names. BillK Ja. Paradise CA is the perfect storm: a retirement community, plenty of people up there have no internet presence; a lot of them don't even have email. Many residents have no regular appointments and don't live up there year around. It isn't clear how to systematically figure out if they are missing in action. People far away are wondering where they are, but this is nearly useless without some kind of public-domain or public access database where we can enter names and data on where last we heard from people who might have been up there when the fire burned the place. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 22:42:12 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 17:42:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> References: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 10:00 AM wrote: > *If one is really interested in this topic, I do highly recommend Richard > Rhodes? excellent ?Making of the Atomic Bomb? for he really did his > homework on that one. Lotsa physics in there but it is not out of reach of > the non-geek. He really put a lot of the heart and soul into that story.* > Richard Rhodes also wrote a squeal that was excellent, "Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb". It described the Teller?Ulam design in some detail and that was particularly interesting because, although its 65 years old, its still the only known way to generate large amounts of fusion energy, except for making a star of course. All other fusion reactors use more energy than they produce, but not Teller?Ulam, it makes lots and lots of energy. I just wish there was a way for it to make a bit less. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 00:22:20 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:22:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] fun, but true Message-ID: According to Food Network ads in my latest copy, there are two new products you have been waiting for: sliced catsup (sliceofsauce.com) platypus milk - contains special proteins A brave new world with these things in it. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 00:25:34 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:25:34 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> References: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <25F6FE3C-2259-4A07-9205-242A0E545E8B@gmail.com> > A lot of that is declassified now. Typically 50 years is long enough to keep that stuff secret. If one is really interested in this topic, I do highly recommend Richard Rhodes? excellent ?Making of the Atomic Bomb? for he really did his homework on that one. Lotsa physics in there but it is not out of reach of the non-geek. He really put a lot of the heart and soul into that story. > > Feynman has also written a lot about that episode of history. > > spike ?According to a recent log of purchase information, ?Atomic Bombs? is sought after mainly by people whose e-mail addresses identify them as members of the nation?s secret nuclear archipelago: LANL, LLNL, SNL, ORNL, ANL, Pantex, Fermilab, the Hanford and Savannah River nuclear plants, the F.B.I. ?Thanks again for the great book,? a nuclear worker named Lee recently wrote to Coster-Mullen. ?As soon as I finish it, my son, who?s on the 61 program??maintaining the stockpile of variants of the original B-61 nuclear bombs??will be reading it, probably in one of the assembly bays.? Many customers seem to enjoy thumbing their noses at U.S. security officials, who remain determined to keep the bomb?s precise technical specifications a mystery. ? The book is more in the vein of the physical size of components and the way that they literally fit together, and are shaped. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 04:12:11 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 20:12:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] 536 famine Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > I worry about lake Toba ( formally Mount Toba) in Indonesia which blew up 74,000 years ago, it was the largest volcanic eruption in the last 2 millions years. But humanity survived, although I'm sure it wasn't much fun for those around at the time. To the extent we can tell about those times, they don't look so bad. https://gizmodo.com/these-early-humans-prospered-during-what-should-have-be-1823697164 Unless we upload or otherwise cut our connection with the natural world, sooner or later there will be one of these volcanic/climate disasters. If humanity was facing this problem today what would we do? Keith From spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 18 05:24:45 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2018 21:24:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex Message-ID: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> We discussed the research last week. Apparently young people all over the globe are having less sex. We can easily imagine reasons, but I have a question please. We don't really have good optimal sex machines yet (oh thank you Keith, I love that name) but we are getting there. It is easily foreseeable that they will be with us in less than a decade (cue the voice of John Kennedy, remove the moon business, replace with optimal sex machines.) How will that count? My intuition tells me it wouldn't or shouldn't count as sex at all. But it would drain the drive, would it not? spike From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 06:42:13 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 00:42:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> Would ?optimal? sex machines count as ?getting some?? Probably not any more than a prostitute does. However I think seeing a prostitute would still count as losing your virginity, where with a sex machine, I probably wouldn?t count it. But yes, I think it would satisfy the physical drive. But I think that it might leave the emotional drive unsatisfied, much the same with Johns. Depending on the person, perhaps it might become dysfunctional. For example we might see people attacking sex robots much the same way people attack prostitutes. Which in and of itself is no issue, bust the escalation might be. But that?s just speculation. SR Ballard > On Nov 17, 2018, at 11:24 PM, wrote: > > > We discussed the research last week. Apparently young people all over the > globe are having less sex. > > We can easily imagine reasons, but I have a question please. We don't > really have good optimal sex machines yet (oh thank you Keith, I love that > name) but we are getting there. It is easily foreseeable that they will be > with us in less than a decade (cue the voice of John Kennedy, remove the > moon business, replace with optimal sex machines.) > > How will that count? My intuition tells me it wouldn't or shouldn't count > as sex at all. But it would drain the drive, would it not? > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 14:39:46 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:39:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: <25F6FE3C-2259-4A07-9205-242A0E545E8B@gmail.com> References: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> <25F6FE3C-2259-4A07-9205-242A0E545E8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > SR Ballard sen.otaku at gmail.com Wrote: > > *In his spare time, a lay person researches the most accurate > publically-available book on the bombs dropped on Japan. * > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/atomic-john > *The book?s simply called ?Atomic Bombs?.* That really does look like an interesting book, I just ordered it from Amazon. Thanks for the tip, I'd never heard of it before. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 18 15:14:39 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 07:14:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: References: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> <25F6FE3C-2259-4A07-9205-242A0E545E8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000e01d47f51$6da27970$48e76c50$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 6:40 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Interesting book SR Ballard sen.otaku at gmail.com Wrote: > In his spare time, a lay person researches the most accurate publically-available book on the bombs dropped on Japan. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/atomic-john The book?s simply called ?Atomic Bombs?. That really does look like an interesting book, I just ordered it from Amazon. Thanks for the tip, I'd never heard of it before. John K Clark #Me Too! Thanks SR! I hadn?t heard of this book, but I am a physics junky from way back and like to know stuff. I like any field of science where a question is asked and there is exactly one right answer, expressed as a number. Those fields of science feel so fair and equal to me, the only places in our creaky old species where equality and justice always prevail, where everyone has a perfectly equal shot at getting the right answer. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 16:44:12 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:44:12 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: <000e01d47f51$6da27970$48e76c50$@rainier66.com> References: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> <25F6FE3C-2259-4A07-9205-242A0E545E8B@gmail.com> <000e01d47f51$6da27970$48e76c50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I am a physics junky from way back and like to know stuff. I like any field of science where a question is asked and there is exactly one right answer, expressed as a number. Those fields of science feel so fair and equal to me, the only places in our creaky old species where equality and justice always prevail, where everyone has a perfectly equal shot at getting the right answer. spike Here's a little story a chemist told me once: in his class there was a student problem which produced various answers. So he did that experiment four times and came up with a different answer each time, none of which were the same as the one in the textbook lab manual. Maybe the chemicals were polluted in some way, or the lab instruments were old, or the chemist was sloppy, but the fact remained that there WAS no one answer to that problem. I know that deep in your hearts, you physics people hate psychology and any other science wannabe area whose errors are to the left of the decimal place, while yours are way to the right. But you are not exactly that pure either, OK? It is good that you are obsessed with getting the right numbers, a trait psychologists should follow, rather than jumping to publication with one result. I ran my Master's experiment ten times and got the same thing every time before my mentor was satisfied. We try. bill w On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 9:19 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark > *Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 6:40 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Interesting book > > > > SR Ballard sen.otaku at gmail.com Wrote: > > > > > *In his spare time, a lay person researches the most accurate > publically-available book on the bombs dropped on Japan. * > > > https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/12/15/atomic-john > > > > *The book?s simply called ?Atomic Bombs?.* > > > > That really does look like an interesting book, I just ordered it from > Amazon. Thanks for the tip, I'd never heard of it before. > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > #Me Too! > > > > Thanks SR! I hadn?t heard of this book, but I am a physics junky from way > back and like to know stuff. I like any field of science where a question > is asked and there is exactly one right answer, expressed as a number. > Those fields of science feel so fair and equal to me, the only places in > our creaky old species where equality and justice always prevail, where > everyone has a perfectly equal shot at getting the right answer. > > > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 16:57:47 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:57:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think seeing a prostitute would still count as losing your virginity, where with a sex machine, I probably wouldn?t count it. ballard Italy, I think, was the place where some prostitutes were studied. They called themselves virgins even though they had given oral sex to thousands of men. Saving themselves for marriage, they said. Some went all the way and had operations to restore their hymens. Is a dildo a sex machine? Do you lose your virginity that way? A smart man would never choose a virgin. A virgin comes with no experience, of course, and has to learn from the man, who often did not trouble himself to learn to please women. And a virgin will have some curiosity about other men that an experienced woman would not have. In fact, marrying a prostitute could be the best idea; you are not going to surprise her; you are not going to disappoint her. She will be able to teach you. This is great. Most men, I am afraid, could not stand the comparison with other men, one of the virtues of the virgin. Yeah, you don't want to raise another man's child, but is that really the issue with virgins? I think not. bill w On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 12:47 AM SR Ballard wrote: > Would ?optimal? sex machines count as ?getting some?? Probably not any > more than a prostitute does. However I think seeing a prostitute would > still count as losing your virginity, where with a sex machine, I probably > wouldn?t count it. > > But yes, I think it would satisfy the physical drive. But I think that it > might leave the emotional drive unsatisfied, much the same with Johns. > Depending on the person, perhaps it might become dysfunctional. For example > we might see people attacking sex robots much the same way people attack > prostitutes. Which in and of itself is no issue, bust the escalation might > be. > > But that?s just speculation. > > SR Ballard > > > On Nov 17, 2018, at 11:24 PM, > wrote: > > > > > > We discussed the research last week. Apparently young people all over > the > > globe are having less sex. > > > > We can easily imagine reasons, but I have a question please. We don't > > really have good optimal sex machines yet (oh thank you Keith, I love > that > > name) but we are getting there. It is easily foreseeable that they will > be > > with us in less than a decade (cue the voice of John Kennedy, remove the > > moon business, replace with optimal sex machines.) > > > > How will that count? My intuition tells me it wouldn't or shouldn't > count > > as sex at all. But it would drain the drive, would it not? > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 16:58:05 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:58:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: How will that count? My intuition tells me it wouldn't or shouldn't count as sex at all. But it would drain the drive, would it not? spike I know that you are just using a metaphor, but let me lay (sorry) to rest a misconception (sorry): Sex is not a drive that builds with time and then is satisfied and drops down only to rise again (sorry). Humans can go weeks, months, years, without any sort of sex and nothing comes (sorry) of it. Remember those islanders who have sex ten times a day. bill w On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:29 PM wrote: > > We discussed the research last week. Apparently young people all over the > globe are having less sex. > > We can easily imagine reasons, but I have a question please. We don't > really have good optimal sex machines yet (oh thank you Keith, I love that > name) but we are getting there. It is easily foreseeable that they will be > with us in less than a decade (cue the voice of John Kennedy, remove the > moon business, replace with optimal sex machines.) > > How will that count? My intuition tells me it wouldn't or shouldn't count > as sex at all. But it would drain the drive, would it not? > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 18 17:14:07 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:14:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: References: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> <25F6FE3C-2259-4A07-9205-242A0E545E8B@gmail.com> <000e01d47f51$6da27970$48e76c50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006d01d47f62$1dd296d0$5977c470$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 8:44 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Interesting book >>?I am a physics junky from way back ? spike >?Here's a little story a chemist told me once: in his class there was a student problem which produced various answers?. >?I ran my Master's experiment ten times and got the same thing every time before my mentor was satisfied. We try. >?bill w BillW, we don?t hate the descriptive sciences. I am a big fan of birds and bird watching. The field of biology in general is a perfect example of a science which is completely dependent on nouns, verbs and adjectives, yet still offers enormously useful predictive power. Psychology is a science I don?t understand but it does offer some great insights into human behavior, particularly after it really gets down to understanding evolution. I look at it this way: no one can master all the areas of human knowledge, so we depend on each other to give us the part that really matters. Once one masters certain fundamental tools, such as mastery of differential equations, one is enabled in some fields of study, such as engineering, dynamics and physics. With that fundamental tool, many doors are wide open, doors which are locked tightly for those who don?t have that key. In the New Yorker article, the atomic bomb author John Coster Mullen demonstrated complete mastery of the engineering end of what he is doing, but down later in the article demonstrated he is missing some key notions which a formal physics education can supply: that bit about making uranium from thorium for example (that?s one of those yes, but? comments) and making a critical mass from Americium. In both cases there are reasons why we don?t worry about the bad guys doing this. I ordered Coster Mullen?s book anyway. There is a nucleon energy chart which explains what can be done and what cannot. Once one masters the nucleon energy chart and all the different fission modes, one can calculate critical masses and a really important detail: how fast a critical mass must be assembled. I leave you with a fun what if. What if? nuclear reactions were 100 times less boomy than they are? I fear if they had been, we woulda nuked ourselves off the planet by now. Reasoning: Alfred Nobel invented TNT. He reasoned that it would make war impossible because it would become too dangerous. But it didn?t; it led to more dangerous warfare. I think he was right that a sufficiently large bomb or destructive technology will lead to peace. He was wrong about what level of destruction was that level. TNT isn?t boomy enough. Nukes are. Result: humans don?t nuke each other. But humans still do TNT each other. Result: nukes really are a weapon of peace, particularly the variety that were never used: the fusion weapon. Conclusion: there is justifiable hope for humanity. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 17:25:00 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 12:25:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 536 famine In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 11:18 PM Keith Henson wrote: > > If humanity was facing this problem today what would we do? > The 1815 Tambora eruption in Indonesia was the largest since humans first invented writing, it was about 150 times as powerful as the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. Tambora Killed at least 71,000 people directly and probably millions more in the "Year Without A Summer" that immediately followed it and in the decade after that which was the coldest since the end if the Ice Age. The Toba eruption 74,000 years ago (also in Indonesia) was at least 100 times as powerful as Tambora, so something like that today would create worldwide political instability and lots of death. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 18 17:30:07 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 09:30:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000c01d47f64$59a527c0$0cef7740$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace > Subject: Re: [ExI] young people having less sex How will that count? My intuition tells me it wouldn't or shouldn't count as sex at all. But it would drain the drive, would it not? spike I know that you are just using a metaphor, but let me lay (sorry) to rest a misconception (sorry): Sex is not a drive that builds with time and then is satisfied and drops down only to rise again (sorry). Humans can go weeks, months, years, without any sort of sex and nothing comes (sorry) of it. Remember those islanders who have sex ten times a day. bill w Hi BillW, About those islanders: I can imagine them doing that only if they are within a coupla years of age 17. Second: for that to take place there would need to be absolutely noooooothing else to do. The whole exercise would soon be pointless methinks, and certainly exhausting. Good data might be available from the porno industry. They aughta know, ja? Regarding shutting off the whole reproductive business for months and years, do let me assure everyone that is plausible, even at age 17 plus and minus two, the peak hormone years for men. If pressing duty calls constantly in those years, the whole system can be shut off, anticipating better days to come (heh.) Better days to come came. But it was later, after the biggest challenges of college days were in the mirror. All that tragically wasted time spent studying, oy vey, tragic waste. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Donald.J.Trump at europe.com Sun Nov 18 18:06:26 2018 From: Donald.J.Trump at europe.com (Donald Trump) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 19:06:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 20:45:21 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 20:45:21 +0000 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 19:19, Donald Trump wrote: > > With a sex robot I would worry about who is looking at me through her eyes? > That's the same problem that people have with all IoT and smart home devices. All your internet connected devices are watching, listening and tracking you. For some reason people still buy these devices and don't mind surrendering their privacy. Privacy seems to be something only for the older generation. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 22:09:37 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:09:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: somebody wrote: Privacy seems to be something only for the older generation. Certainly true in my case, though I think financial and health records and info should be extremely well protected. I don't mind anyone knowing what I buy on Amazon or anywhere else (not drug store). All they will do is to send me ads more appropriate for me, though I keep getting ads for things I have already bought and don't need another or know that I will buy that again. My problem with the whole thing is getting robocalls to sell me something. The quietness of my home is very important to me. Now if my wife and I are tracked to that someone will know we are not home and not near so that can rob me. well, that's fixable, isn't it? Taking the battery out does it, doesn't it? Turning the phone off doesn't, does it? bill w On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 2:50 PM BillK wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 at 19:19, Donald Trump > wrote: > > > > With a sex robot I would worry about who is looking at me through her > eyes? > > > > That's the same problem that people have with all IoT and smart home > devices. All your internet connected devices are watching, listening > and tracking you. For some reason people still buy these devices and > don't mind surrendering their privacy. > Privacy seems to be something only for the older generation. > > 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 Sun Nov 18 23:14:21 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 18:14:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Interesting book In-Reply-To: <006d01d47f62$1dd296d0$5977c470$@rainier66.com> References: <003001d47dbc$4099ec60$c1cdc520$@rainier66.com> <25F6FE3C-2259-4A07-9205-242A0E545E8B@gmail.com> <000e01d47f51$6da27970$48e76c50$@rainier66.com> <006d01d47f62$1dd296d0$5977c470$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 12:22 PM wrote: *> he is missing some key notions which a formal physics education can > supply: that bit about making uranium from thorium for example (that?s one > of those yes, but? comments) and making a critical mass from Americium. * > You can can turn Thorium into Uranium 233 in a reactor and theoretically you can make a bomb from U-233 but even if you somehow avoid Gama Rays from U-232 contamination it's much harder to make a bomb with U-233 than with U-235 or Plutonium 239. A U-233 bomb was attempted only twice, in 1955 the USA set off a plutonium-U-233 composite bomb, it was expected to produce 33 kilotons but only managed 22; the only pure U-233 bomb I know of was set off in 1998 by India, but it was a fizzle, a complete flop, it produced a minuscule explosion of only 200 tons due to pre-detonation. You could make a bomb with Americium-242 (half life about a century) and it would be small enough to fit in your pocket because its critical mass is less than 1% that of Plutonium. But you could do other things with Americium-242, like make a super efficient rocket. The efficiency of a rocket depends on its exhaust velocity, the faster the better. The space shuttle's oxygen hydrogen engine had a exhaust velocity of about 4500 meters per second and that's very good for a chemical rocket, the nuclear heated rocket called NERVA tested in the 1960's had a exhaust velocity of 8000 meters per second, and ion engines are about 80,000. With the help of Americium you could do better, much better, say around 200,000,000 meters per second. And then you could get to Mars in 2 weeks instead of 2 years. The primary products of a fission reaction are about that fast, but if you use Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239 the large bulk of the material will absorb the primary fission products and just heat up the material, that slows things way down. However the critical mass for Americium-242 is so small that wouldn't be a problem. In the January 2001 issue of Nuclear Instruments and Methods Physics Research A Yigal Ronen and Eugene Shwagerous calculate that a metallic film of Americium 242 less than a thousandth of a millimeter thick would undergo fission. This is so thin that rather than heat the bulk material the energy of the process would go almost entirely into the speed of the primary fission products, they would go free. Engineering the rocket would be tricky and I'm not sure I'd want to be on the same planet as a large scale Americium 242 production facility, but it's an interesting idea. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 19 15:33:02 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 07:33:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Donald Trump Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:06 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] young people having less sex >?With a sex robot I would worry about who is looking at me through her eyes? The Donald We now know that self-contained battery powered cameras can be and have been hidden in hotel rooms. The cameras themselves are so tiny: notice the size of the aperture on your cell phone camera. The device itself is smaller than a pea. Taking an old cell phone apart is very educational. Current spy tech can be defeated by turning off the lights when you go into a hotel room (those tiny aperture cameras don?t work well in low light) but they can have their own IR source. IR sources can be seen. So what if? they keep going and make those spy cams work in near UV? Then the aperture can be made even smaller, they could have their own light source which can?t be seen and the video they record would be in even higher resolution. Then we know for a fact that all assured privacy is gone. Will you carry yourself any differently? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 18:31:07 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 12:31:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Then we know for a fact that all assured privacy is gone. Will you carry yourself any differently? spike Probably not. But in novels they have bug detectors to sweep the room. None for this kind of bug? bill w Pro On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:38 AM wrote: > > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Donald Trump > *Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:06 AM > *To:* extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] young people having less sex > > > > > > > > >?With a sex robot I would worry about who is looking at me through her > eyes? > > > > The Donald > > > > > > > > We now know that self-contained battery powered cameras can be and have > been hidden in hotel rooms. The cameras themselves are so tiny: notice the > size of the aperture on your cell phone camera. The device itself is > smaller than a pea. Taking an old cell phone apart is very educational. > > > > Current spy tech can be defeated by turning off the lights when you go > into a hotel room (those tiny aperture cameras don?t work well in low > light) but they can have their own IR source. IR sources can be seen. So > what if? they keep going and make those spy cams work in near UV? Then the > aperture can be made even smaller, they could have their own light source > which can?t be seen and the video they record would be in even higher > resolution. Then we know for a fact that all assured privacy is gone. > > > > Will you carry yourself any differently? > > > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 19 18:59:30 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 10:59:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] young people having less sex >>?Then we know for a fact that all assured privacy is gone. >>?Will you carry yourself any differently? >>?spike >?Probably not. But in novels they have bug detectors to sweep the room. None for this kind of bug? bill w The bug detectors look for electromagnetic transmission. Modern spy cams need not do that. They carry sufficient memory to be completely self-contained, collecting and storing images for physical retrieval or for burst transmission that would look exactly like a television emissions in the EM band. I would argue this would make them nearly undetectable. spike On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:38 AM > wrote: From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of Donald Trump Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:06 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] young people having less sex >?With a sex robot I would worry about who is looking at me through her eyes? The Donald We now know that self-contained battery powered cameras can be and have been hidden in hotel rooms. The cameras themselves are so tiny: notice the size of the aperture on your cell phone camera. The device itself is smaller than a pea. Taking an old cell phone apart is very educational. Current spy tech can be defeated by turning off the lights when you go into a hotel room (those tiny aperture cameras don?t work well in low light) but they can have their own IR source. IR sources can be seen. So what if? they keep going and make those spy cams work in near UV? Then the aperture can be made even smaller, they could have their own light source which can?t be seen and the video they record would be in even higher resolution. Then we know for a fact that all assured privacy is gone. Will you carry yourself any differently? 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 Nov 19 21:02:50 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:02:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: So we can assume that what you report is both wonderful and disastrous news for the spy business. How can one know that the embassy is safe from spying? Can't, it seems. bill w On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 1:04 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] young people having less sex > > > > >>?Then we know for a fact that all assured privacy is gone. > > >>?Will you carry yourself any differently? > > >>?spike > > > > > > >?Probably not. But in novels they have bug detectors to sweep the > room. None for this kind of bug? bill w > > > > The bug detectors look for electromagnetic transmission. Modern spy cams > need not do that. They carry sufficient memory to be completely > self-contained, collecting and storing images for physical retrieval or for > burst transmission that would look exactly like a television emissions in > the EM band. I would argue this would make them nearly undetectable. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 9:38 AM wrote: > > > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Donald Trump > *Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 10:06 AM > *To:* extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] young people having less sex > > > > > > > > >?With a sex robot I would worry about who is looking at me through her > eyes? > > > > The Donald > > > > > > > > We now know that self-contained battery powered cameras can be and have > been hidden in hotel rooms. The cameras themselves are so tiny: notice the > size of the aperture on your cell phone camera. The device itself is > smaller than a pea. Taking an old cell phone apart is very educational. > > > > Current spy tech can be defeated by turning off the lights when you go > into a hotel room (those tiny aperture cameras don?t work well in low > light) but they can have their own IR source. IR sources can be seen. So > what if? they keep going and make those spy cams work in near UV? Then the > aperture can be made even smaller, they could have their own light source > which can?t be seen and the video they record would be in even higher > resolution. Then we know for a fact that all assured privacy is gone. > > > > Will you carry yourself any differently? > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 22:42:51 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:42:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> Sort of related to the original subject: https://medium.com/the-radical-center/does-america-have-a-child-bride-crisis-fa4afdb7b4bc And Peron seems correct about how people code this issue in a way that makes there appear to be a bigger problem. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Nov 19 23:51:39 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:51:39 -0600 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: The referenced statistics can be found in this article: http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/ If 1% of 200K married in 15 years are 13 years old, then that?s still more than 100 per year. Maybe that?s not a ?crisis? but it is (or can be) a problem. Can you sue for divorce at 14, or do you need your parents to do it? And if you have sex with your husband, is it statutory rape? SR Ballard > On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:42 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > Sort of related to the original subject: > > https://medium.com/the-radical-center/does-america-have-a-child-bride-crisis-fa4afdb7b4bc > > And Peron seems correct about how people code this issue in a way that makes there appear to be a bigger problem. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 00:46:46 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:46:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Grammar problem: 'less' usually refers to things that are continuous in quantity - more rice, less rice, whereas 'fewer'usually refers to things that are discrete in quantity - more eggs, fewer eggs. So you can have fewer people, not less people. But just what is sex?? Discrete or continuous? Have to go with discrete, which makes the awkward construction 'people having fewer sex'. Nah. Fewer sex 'acts' works. People who go all the way with the male to female thing could, in a twisted way, have less sex, or maybe less sex things to have sex with. Nah, still have to be fewer. Sorry I wasted your time. bill w On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:20 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > Sort of related to the original subject: > > > https://medium.com/the-radical-center/does-america-have-a-child-bride-crisis-fa4afdb7b4bc > > And Peron seems correct about how people code this issue in a way that > makes there appear to be a bigger problem. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > 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 hibbard at wisc.edu Mon Nov 19 23:51:59 2018 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:51:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] female heros? Message-ID: Been unable to post to extropy-chat for some time and the wisc.edu admins think they've fixed the problem. As a test I'm sending a message that I couldn't before: Judy Faulkner is Wisconsin's great tech entrepreneur: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Faulkner and a very admirable person. From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 01:15:15 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:15:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8958E81B-6E7E-420F-8C5F-71BFCCEEE79D@gmail.com> That?s more responding to the subject line ? which is not mine originally, so I accept no blame for it;). This seems an ambiguous case because less sex could mean fewer sex acts or less time (in seconds or as a percentage) expended on sex. A person could have two hours of continuous sex a day, but consider that one sex act (how to draw the line?) or have a half hour of sex a day, but have it broken into three ten minute sex acts. Who has had more sex in these cases? In this context, ?sex? seems a mass known, which is why you and I had to fall back on ?sex act? to be clear, no? And I think the real test is whether people understand the construction. Yes, ?fewer sex acts? is standard English, but using less instead of fewer rarely confuses readers or listeners, does it? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Nov 19, 2018, at 4:46 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Grammar problem: 'less' usually refers to things that are continuous in quantity - more rice, less rice, whereas 'fewer'usually refers to things that are discrete in quantity - more eggs, fewer eggs. So you can have fewer people, not less people. > > But just what is sex?? Discrete or continuous? Have to go with discrete, which makes the awkward construction 'people having fewer sex'. Nah. Fewer sex 'acts' works. > > People who go all the way with the male to female thing could, in a twisted way, have less sex, or maybe less sex things to have sex with. Nah, still have to be fewer. > > Sorry I wasted your time. > > bill w > >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 5:20 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> Sort of related to the original subject: >> >> https://medium.com/the-radical-center/does-america-have-a-child-bride-crisis-fa4afdb7b4bc >> >> And Peron seems correct about how people code this issue in a way that makes there appear to be a bigger problem. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 01:04:00 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:04:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> > On Nov 19, 2018, at 3:51 PM, SR Ballard wrote: > > The referenced statistics can be found in this article: http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/ > > If 1% of 200K married in 15 years are 13 years old, then that?s still more than 100 per year. Be careful with averaging because over that period of time, the rate dropped and seems to have dropped quite steadily. The three states I looked at (Mississippi, West Virginia, and Washington) showed a mostly steady drop (Washington had an early small uptick then declined and never got up to 2000 levels again). And the national level matches this pattern. It?s kind of like averaging deaths from smallpox between 1900 and today. (Of course, this analogy is overstated, but that?s for effect. ;) > Maybe that?s not a ?crisis? but it is (or can be) a problem. Peron does agree child marriage is a problem. He stated that a few times in his piece. He even has a problem with teens who aren?t underage getting married. (And I?ve seen a few of those marriages going belly up, though I know of one case where it?s being going strong for a decade or so... And, no, that?s not me.;) I was surprised it went on at all in the US and presumed all of it was the 16 year old getting pregnant and marrying her 17 year old paramour. And mostly that seems not far from the truth. But let?s be careful of finding out what the actual base rate is, what the trends are, and not get caught up in thinking that this is 9 year old girls being married off to creepy old men. > Can you sue for divorce at 14, or do you need your parents to do it? And if you have sex with your husband, is it statutory rape? You?ve reached the limit of my knowledge. I imagine the sex issue is not a problem given that the state is blessing a relationship that typically involves sex. I don?t know about divorce, but I reckon if the court is approving the marriage that that?s where the issue would be settled, even if there?s no parental approval. I don?t know enough about the low end ? which is an extremely small number of people considering that we?re talking about a country of 326 million people. How many married 13 year olds have you met ? presuming you live in the US? I don?t believe I?ve met any. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 19 22:58:45 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 14:58:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] bugless auto-driving campers, was: RE: young people having less sex Message-ID: <018d01d4805b$6d48bdd0$47da3970$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] young people having less sex So we can assume that what you report is both wonderful and disastrous news for the spy business. How can one know that the embassy is safe from spying? Can't, it seems. bill w Embassy ja. Hotel room, not. Reasoning: the transmission detectors/jammers do work and are practical (necessary) in an embassy, but impractical even if necessary in a hotel room. The physical retrieval system can be defeated in an embassy by having classified meetings only in a classified area, which they probably are anyway (I would sure hope so.) Writing about this gives me a terrific idea. Consider the small but growing important minority: retired people with no children, few living family, no feelings toward their alma mater and pleeeeenty of money. That last part is why I called them an important minority: society wants their money, and technology works to give them whatever they want in order to get it. OK, I know plenty of people in this leisure class. After they retire, they have money but nothing to do. In many of those cases, they can?t really see all that well and don?t drive all that well, so they don?t feel comfortable driving a big motorhome. They would rather do road trips than sea voyages (which are really kinda boring actually) so a foreseeable product emerges: a self-driving high-end motorhome. A self-driving feature tacks on several thousand bucks to a vehicle, but this would scarcely be noticed in a rig that already costs a couple hundred k, or more for a nice one. As we get to the point where any hotel room or ship?s cabin might have hidden cameras https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/familys-shock-after-finding-hidden-camera-in-cruise-ship-cabin/news-story/498ee525e409df99595975800e424427 but we can ensure our own motorhome doesn?t, I can see them becoming more popular, particularly if you can get one to drive the proles somewhere. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 05:53:12 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:53:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 12:00 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > A smart man would never choose a virgin. A virgin comes with no > experience, of course, and has to learn from the man, who often did not > trouble himself to learn to please women. And a virgin will have some > curiosity about other men that an experienced woman would not have. > ### This is untrue. The likelihood of having a stable marriage, which is a proxy for a good marriage in a society where divorce is an easy option, is highest for persons who only had one partner in their lives (i.e. the spouse), about 75% stability. The likelihood of divorce creeps up with each partner the wife had, really shoots up at the fourth partner and reaches a plateau around ten partners, with only about 20% chance of stable marriage. If you want a good marriage, don't marry a slut. ---------------------- > In fact, marrying a prostitute could be the best idea; you are not going > to surprise her; you are not going to disappoint her. She will be able to > teach you. This is great. > ### And you get to intimately know the chlamydia, genital warts, herpes, antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea and maybe even molluscum. Or crabs. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 05:32:25 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:32:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Children's Rights In-Reply-To: <4b33bf9e79b0616e7987d9f89b7244cb.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <4b33bf9e79b0616e7987d9f89b7244cb.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 1:27 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > So in other words, doing stuff that got us a yelled at back in our day get > the kids of today suspended. And stuff that got us suspended back then, > get today's kids a stay in juvenile detention. ### This sounds insane. Using full-on black-uniformed jackbooted enforcers to interfere with children playing and learning about power can't lead to anything good. Could it be one of the reasons for the flurry of special snowflakes that now swirl through university safe spaces? Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 00:47:05 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:47:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is an interesting talk by Daniel Dennett. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTepA-WV_oE I wrote Dennett, this is most of what I said. Watched your recent TED talk where you brought up this from Rick Warren: "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense." You have a problem with that, and so do I. But it is a common feature of religions. The trait of having religions, like all else in living things, evolved. It was either directly selected or it is a side effect from some other trait that was selected. The trait to have religions is widespread. This indicates that at some point in our past, the trait was under strong selection. Similar to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Capture-bonding What situations in our evolutionary past would have led to a strong selection for this psychological trait? War. Humans are a top predator, i.e., nothing except other humans ultimately limits their numbers. About once per generation (in a stable environment), population growth leads to a resource crisis. In this matter, humans are very different from chimpanzees. With chimps, their xenophobia is always on. Humans detect a resource crisis and undergo a behavioral switch. It is not cost effective (in gene terms) to fight neighbors if the alternative (starvation) is not worse. War is a situation where personal and genetic goals are in conflict. Thus, even if "it doesn't make sense" the genes of our ancestors did better if they went to war under some circumstances. (The key to the model is that the downside for the loser's genes was limited by the universal human trait of the winners taking the female children as wives or extra wives.) I make a case that "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it doesn't make sense" has its origin in the same psychological trait that worked up our ancestors in a resource crisis to kill their neighbors. This is not to condemn religions in general. As you say, they have a long history of evolution under human direction. It is an attempt to account for the evolved human psychological traits that underly religions. Keith From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 08:35:42 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:35:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> Message-ID: >> A smart man would never choose a virgin. A virgin comes with no experience, of course, and has to learn from the man, who often did not trouble himself to learn to please women. And a virgin will have some curiosity about other men that an experienced woman would not have. > > ### This is untrue. The likelihood of having a stable marriage, which is a proxy for a good marriage in a society where divorce is an easy option, is highest for persons who only had one partner in their lives (i.e. the spouse), about 75% stability. The likelihood of divorce creeps up with each partner the wife had, really shoots up at the fourth partner and reaches a plateau around ten partners, with only about 20% chance of stable marriage. If you want a good marriage, don't marry a slut. I think the word ?slut? here is a bit strong. Also, there are confounding variables here as well. You know the group of women most likely to remain virgins until marriage? Religious women. You know the group most likely to find divorce socially unacceptable despite it being legal? Religious women. You know who are trained to believe that they are the property of their husbands and should submit to abuse? Religious women. >> In fact, marrying a prostitute could be the best idea; you are not going to surprise her; you are not going to disappoint her. She will be able to teach you. This is great. > > ### And you get to intimately know the chlamydia, genital warts, herpes, antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea and maybe even molluscum. Or crabs. > > Rafal Or, you know, you could take yourselves to the clinic before having sex? It?s not as if she?d be embarrassed. Do you know any former prostitutes? SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 05:14:53 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:14:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: Have I personally met any people under 16 who are married? No. However one of my uncles is an IFB pastor and had a very young girl marry a much older man. I don?t have a concrete number, but she was definitely under 16 and he was definitely at least late 20s, perhaps slightly older. You would think that she can sue for divorce, but the truth is that 16 year olds who get married cannot rent an apartment, their older partner must do it for them, because they are not legally adults. I would think that it would count as statutory, because we have established that spousal rape exists, right? Marriage does not automatically give a person a right to have sex with their spouse, and statutory rape is the idea that someone is too young to be able to give consent, so it seems that wouldn?t actually change based on marriage status. I assume it?s technically illegal but no one is going to prosecute. > Be careful with averaging because over that period of time, the rate dropped and seems to have dropped quite steadily Now you?re right there, of course. But again, I think that regardless, even if it is a very small number of people, they do require advocates and special attention due to the nature of the thing, even if it?s only a handful of under 16s per year. And I?m not trying to be controversial, however the reason I think that resources for these girls is so important, are because of the circumstances surrounding many of these very young marriages ? often sexual abuse by an older man resulting in pregnancy, or due to an extreme religious system. For example, Warren Jeffs had one wife who was twelve. Now of course, he claims it was spiritual and he did not have sex with her. But do I believe him? ?Mildred "Millie" Blackmore was just 13 years old when she married Jeffs in 2004. Canadian authorities tried to locate her years later, and according to her brother, she had returned to her native polygamous community in Canada. He told The Salt Lake Tribune that she appeared to be loyal to Jeffs as of November 2016. Authorities were also searching for Canadian natives Alyshia Rae Blackmore and Nolita Colleen Blackmore, who both married Jeffs when they were 12.? Clearly these are a very serious thing which deserve attention, even though I believe they really are on the trend downward. Though, also, these are not legally recognized marriages, I don?t think, as polygamy is illegal in the States. So, the number of de facto child marriages may be higher than the official numbers might lead us to believe. SR Ballard > On Nov 19, 2018, at 7:04 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >> On Nov 19, 2018, at 3:51 PM, SR Ballard wrote: >> >> The referenced statistics can be found in this article: http://apps.frontline.org/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/ >> >> If 1% of 200K married in 15 years are 13 years old, then that?s still more than 100 per year. > > Be careful with averaging because over that period of time, the rate dropped and seems to have dropped quite steadily. The three states I looked at (Mississippi, West Virginia, and Washington) showed a mostly steady drop (Washington had an early small uptick then declined and never got up to 2000 levels again). And the national level matches this pattern. It?s kind of like averaging deaths from smallpox between 1900 and today. (Of course, this analogy is overstated, but that?s for effect. ;) > >> Maybe that?s not a ?crisis? but it is (or can be) a problem. > > Peron does agree child marriage is a problem. He stated that a few times in his piece. He even has a problem with teens who aren?t underage getting married. (And I?ve seen a few of those marriages going belly up, though I know of one case where it?s being going strong for a decade or so... And, no, that?s not me.;) I was surprised it went on at all in the US and presumed all of it was the 16 year old getting pregnant and marrying her 17 year old paramour. And mostly that seems not far from the truth. But let?s be careful of finding out what the actual base rate is, what the trends are, and not get caught up in thinking that this is 9 year old girls being married off to creepy old men. > >> Can you sue for divorce at 14, or do you need your parents to do it? And if you have sex with your husband, is it statutory rape? > > You?ve reached the limit of my knowledge. I imagine the sex issue is not a problem given that the state is blessing a relationship that typically involves sex. > > I don?t know about divorce, but I reckon if the court is approving the marriage that that?s where the issue would be settled, even if there?s no parental approval. I don?t know enough about the low end ? which is an extremely small number of people considering that we?re talking about a country of 326 million people. How many married 13 year olds have you met ? presuming you live in the US? I don?t believe I?ve met any. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 08:38:22 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:38:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Children's Rights In-Reply-To: References: <4b33bf9e79b0616e7987d9f89b7244cb.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: >> So in other words, doing stuff that got us a yelled at back in our day get >> the kids of today suspended. And stuff that got us suspended back then, >> get today's kids a stay in juvenile detention. > > ### This sounds insane. Using full-on black-uniformed jackbooted enforcers to interfere with children playing and learning about power can't lead to anything good. Could it be one of the reasons for the flurry of special snowflakes that now swirl through university safe spaces? > > Rafal Perhaps it plays a role, but there are much larger cultural forces at work here. I grew up in fear of the cops at my school and their guns and worried they would kill me. This is now very normal to worry about. Or to worry about being shot by classmates. We had kids being munitions to school. It?s the new normal. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 20 05:17:16 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 21:17:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] creepy, was: RE: child marriage, usa Message-ID: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan >?girls being married off to creepy old men? Dan Those words seem to go together, but it concerns me because it implicates normal old men. Think of it this way. What if? one starts out as a creepy young man, then realizes he is creepy. Perhaps he comes to know all the different flavors of pepper spray for instance. On a first date he suggests she just spray him before they leave, so it will save time and money, that sort of thing. But this creepy young man decides he can change, studies human behavior patterns, checks out books at the library such as ?How To Not Be Creepy? and really works at it. Over the years he becomes steadily less creepy. Do we then even have a good name for such men? And what if? a woman gets tired of being non-creepy and gives it up? Why don?t we have words that sound like they go together: creepy old woman? It doesn?t seem right to me. And what is it with people going? It seems we don?t say. I recall at one time hearing young people relate a discussion thus: He said {such and such} then she said {so and so.} But now it?s: He goes {yakkity yak} then she goes {bla bla}. This causes problems when we are trying to determine the truthfulness of an indeterminant court case where evidence is scant, which now must be called a case of he-goes-she-goes. I was stuffing Christmas envelopes and suddenly remembered I need to attend a meeting. I ejaculated the comment OH! My son queried ?Why do you go OH?? I replied that I am just a mean old OH goer. I am working to become a nice old OH goer. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 05:13:28 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:13:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transparent Society problem In-Reply-To: References: <007601d47d10$a2df7810$e89e6830$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 9:01 AM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 2:31 PM BillK wrote: > > > *even the uttering of unpopular opinions is becoming a very risky >> action.* > > > As this very list has demonstrated on more than one occasion. > > ### Really? How? Anybody got taken out back and shot? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Tue Nov 20 16:33:51 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 08:33:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Children's Rights Message-ID: <2c9ecc3d937e6481a3088df6fc314f52.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Rafal wrote: >> So in other words, doing stuff that got us a yelled at back in our day >> get the kids of today suspended. And stuff that got us suspended back >> then, get today's kids a stay in juvenile detention. > > ### This sounds insane. Using full-on black-uniformed jackbooted > enforcers to interfere with children playing and learning about power > can't lead to anything good. These videos represent all that the government wants kids to learn about power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkc1lBryEpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAdRlBd8xQ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzrIR6DAhFs > Could it be one of the reasons for the > flurry of special snowflakes that now swirl through university safe > spaces? Rafal Well the theory on the left is that as soon as those snowflakes succeed at getting our gun rights legislated away, the cops will beat them less brutally because that's how government has historically operated, right? Stanley Milgram would be proud! Stuart LaForge From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 18:31:57 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 12:31:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] creepy, was: RE: child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> References: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > And what if? a woman gets tired of being non-creepy and gives it up? Why don?t we have words that sound like they go together: creepy old woman? The phrase would be ?creepy old lady?. In the vernacular, ?old man? and ?old lady? are set phrases. > And what is it with people going? It seems we don?t say. I recall at one time hearing young people relate a discussion thus: He said {such and such} then she said {so and so.} But now it?s: He goes {yakkity yak} then she goes {bla bla}. And see, my generation would say ?was like?: He was like {such and such}, but then she was like {so and so}. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 20 18:51:07 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 10:51:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] creepy, was: RE: child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: References: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <014e01d48101$ff8629c0$fe927d40$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard And what is it with people going? It seems we don?t say. I recall at one time hearing young people relate a discussion thus: He said {such and such} then she said {so and so.} But now it?s: He goes {yakkity yak} then she goes {bla bla}. And see, my generation would say ?was like?: He was like {such and such}, but then she was like {so and so}. SR Ballard Ja, and it gets even worse from there. After people stopped being like, they were all. A description of the ?dialog? often came with acted out gesturing and pantomime: He was all (exaggerated act, often including facial gestures and body language, surprisingly often with a lack of actual verbalization.) But consider the difficulty presented to the court stenographer who must translate all this to text. A case with contradictory testimony might be transcribed: Well he was all, then she was all, and he was all, then she was, then he was? Judges reviewing the transcript of a He?s All She?s All case would be most puzzled. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 12:40:40 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:40:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] female heros? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It worked, On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 8:12 PM Bill Hibbard wrote: > Been unable to post to extropy-chat for some time > and the wisc.edu admins think they've fixed the > problem. As a test I'm sending a message that I > couldn't before: > > Judy Faulkner is Wisconsin's great tech entrepreneur: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Faulkner > and a very admirable person. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 19:51:42 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:51:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] creepy, was: RE: child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: <014e01d48101$ff8629c0$fe927d40$@rainier66.com> References: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> <014e01d48101$ff8629c0$fe927d40$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <0186113E-8AEE-4AB6-8B3A-2C10E2E218E3@gmail.com> ?He was all? is used to describe a general attitude rather than specific dialogue, at least in the 22-28 age range. SR Ballard > On Nov 20, 2018, at 12:51 PM, wrote: > > > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard > > And what is it with people going? It seems we don?t say. I recall at one time hearing young people relate a discussion thus: He said {such and such} then she said {so and so.} But now it?s: He goes {yakkity yak} then she goes {bla bla}. > > And see, my generation would say ?was like?: > > He was like {such and such}, but then she was like {so and so}. > > SR Ballard > > > Ja, and it gets even worse from there. After people stopped being like, they were all. A description of the ?dialog? often came with acted out gesturing and pantomime: He was all (exaggerated act, often including facial gestures and body language, surprisingly often with a lack of actual verbalization.) > > But consider the difficulty presented to the court stenographer who must translate all this to text. A case with contradictory testimony might be transcribed: > > Well he was all, then she was all, and he was all, then she was, then he was? > > Judges reviewing the transcript of a He?s All She?s All case would be most puzzled. > > 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 tara at taramayastales.com Tue Nov 20 19:47:36 2018 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:47:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] creepy, was: RE: child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> References: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <118EDCDD-4C2A-4FBC-9047-72FDA104CFD0@taramayastales.com> > On Nov 19, 2018, at 9:17 PM, wrote: > > Do we then even have a good name for such men? Wise old man. Kindly old man. Santa Claus. Tara Maya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 20 20:40:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:40:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] creepy, was: RE: child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: <118EDCDD-4C2A-4FBC-9047-72FDA104CFD0@taramayastales.com> References: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> <118EDCDD-4C2A-4FBC-9047-72FDA104CFD0@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: Hey!! Why not 'older man' and 'older' woman'. Men can stand 'old' but women can't- maybe when they are 90. I think women would greatly prefer 'older'. I even still say "I feel that...." Shows my age. What remains from the 40s and 50s when I grew up and is still very popular? Cool. bill w On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:16 PM Tara Maya wrote: > > > On Nov 19, 2018, at 9:17 PM, > wrote: > > Do we then even have a good name for such men? > > > > Wise old man. > > Kindly old man. > > Santa Claus. > > > Tara Maya > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Nov 20 23:04:33 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 18:04:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Keith Henson Wrote: > *> The trait of having religions, like all else in living things, > evolved. It was either directly selected or it is a side effect from some > other trait that was selected. * I don't see any way religion could be selected for directly, maybe it helps something else that is selected for directly but I think it's more likely religion is a Evolutionary Spandrel; I wouldn't be surprised if music appreciation was one too. > > *> The trait to have religions is widespread. This indicates that at some > point in our past, the trait was under strong selection. What situations in > our evolutionary past would have led to a strong selection for this > psychological trait? War. * I'm skeptical that religion will in general help to get a gene into the next generation, for one thing one of the main causes of war is religion and the genes in young men killed in religious wars end up going nowhere, and for another in the last 60 years death from violence has dropped to the lowest level in human history and the general trend toward violence has been declining for centuries. > > *Humans are a top predator, i.e., nothing except other humans > ultimately limits their numbers. * I don't think that's true. The 1918 flu epidemic killed more people than World War one and two combined, and the 1346 Black Death epidemic killed 50 million people in Europe and that was 60% of that continent's entire population at the time, no war has come close to doing that. And a Chinese famine in 1846 killed 45 million people and then in the same country just a few years later in 1850 another famine killed 60 million people. > > *>I make a case that "Surrendered people obey God's word, even if it > doesn't make sense" has its origin in the same psychological trait that > worked up our ancestors in a resource crisis to kill their neighbors.* I think it's more likely religion results from a tendency of very young children to believe what their parents tell them. Without that tendency it would be impossible to pass on valuable information from one generation to the next, like how to make a fire or how to hunt a Mammoth or how to plant seeds etc. Most parents don't hear voices in their head telling them what to do but some do. And they tell their children about it, and they believe it, and in time they end up telling their children about those voices and on and on it goes. Not all cultural information is true or beneficial but if overall if it helps genes get from one generation to another then the tendency of children to mimic the behavior of adults will persist, and so will the belief that God tells some people what to do. > > *This is not to condemn religions in general. * Why not? I have no qualms about about condemning religion in general, explaining how something got screwed up doesn't make it any less screwed up. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Nov 21 01:45:56 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 19:45:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] creepy, was: RE: child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: References: <026f01d48090$4e2c5080$ea84f180$@rainier66.com> <118EDCDD-4C2A-4FBC-9047-72FDA104CFD0@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: <51C7A745-2D7A-4F01-A6C7-854F16EB6FCA@gmail.com> Older woman still sounds rude to my young ears. Older lady maybe. Though perhaps this is a Southern hangup? Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2018, at 2:40 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Hey!! Why not 'older man' and 'older' woman'. Men can stand 'old' but women can't- maybe when they are 90. I think women would greatly prefer 'older'. > > I even still say "I feel that...." Shows my age. > > What remains from the 40s and 50s when I grew up and is still very popular? Cool. > > bill w > >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:16 PM Tara Maya wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 19, 2018, at 9:17 PM, wrote: >>> >>> Do we then even have a good name for such men? >> >> >> Wise old man. >> >> Kindly old man. >> >> Santa Claus. >> >> >> Tara Maya >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Nov 22 16:19:57 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:19:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] chinese constitution Message-ID: I read an article where Chinese students were protesting loudly against a university's plan to examine all electronic gadgets: PCs. phones, etc. They said it was unconstitutional (despite the fact the the gov. in the West, mostly Muslim parts, violates this all the time). So I searched for the constitution and here it is: https://www.usconstitution.net/china.html#Article35 It was very surprising to me about the freedoms this document says the people have, and you might be too. Happy Turkey bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 00:10:44 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 19:10:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] chinese constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It doesn't matter what a constitution says, its only as good as the people who interpret it and the people that enforce it. That's why I'm so worried about the USA. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 25 02:10:45 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 20:10:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] chinese constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, now. We have an increasingly conservative systems of courts. If they do what they say they want to do, strict construction, then we have nothing to worry about. We will not be moving away from our Constitution, but maybe even back towards it in some ways (???). This may be a good time for conservative courts to rein in wayward politicians. A liberal can find some hope in this situation. bill w On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 6:16 PM John Clark wrote: > It doesn't matter what a constitution says, its only as good as the people > who interpret it and the people that enforce it. That's why I'm so worried > about the USA. > > 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 Sun Nov 25 05:01:30 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:01:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] chinese constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is also why I pay little attention to the Chinese constitution. It means what those in charge say it does at the time - no more, no less, no matter what it actually says or doesn't say. Near-complete impossibility for the government to be wrong (to a far greater degree than we see in the US, even now) kind of invalidates the point of having written laws. On Nov 24, 2018 4:15 PM, "John Clark" wrote: It doesn't matter what a constitution says, its only as good as the people who interpret it and the people that enforce it. That's why I'm so worried about the USA. 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 spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 25 05:33:04 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2018 21:33:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] chinese constitution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00cf01d48480$5727bf50$05773df0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] chinese constitution >?Well, now. We have an increasingly conservative systems of courts. If they do what they say they want to do, strict construction, then we have nothing to worry about. We will not be moving away from our Constitution, but maybe even back towards it in some ways (???). This may be a good time for conservative courts to rein in wayward politicians. A liberal can find some hope in this situation. bill w Truer words are seldom spoken. Thanks BillW. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 26 18:03:49 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:03:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs Message-ID: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> The tension builds. Insights lands (safely we hope) in 2 hours. Good luck to us! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 19:12:18 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:12:18 +0000 Subject: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs In-Reply-To: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> References: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 at 18:11, spike wrote: > > The tension builds. Insights lands (safely we hope) in 2 hours. Good luck to us! > You can watch live on NASA TV. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 19:14:25 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:14:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs In-Reply-To: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> References: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:03 AM, wrote: > > > The tension builds. Insights lands (safely we hope) in 2 hours. Good luck to us! > > spike Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 26 21:13:21 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:13:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs In-Reply-To: References: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <0ddf01d485cc$e3116e60$a9344b20$@rainier66.com> TOUCHDOWN CONFIRMED! spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:14 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:03 AM, > > wrote: The tension builds. Insights lands (safely we hope) in 2 hours. Good luck to us! spike Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 26 21:13:21 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:13:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs In-Reply-To: References: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <0dd801d485cc$e1a02b20$a4e08160$@rainier66.com> First image has returned. Life? is? gooooooood? {8^D spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:14 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:03 AM, > > wrote: The tension builds. Insights lands (safely we hope) in 2 hours. Good luck to us! spike Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 26 21:13:21 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (Spike Jones) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 13:13:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs In-Reply-To: References: <009301d485b2$626b5060$2741f120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <0de401d485cc$e4121580$ac364080$@rainier66.com> Ten minutes to landing. We have telemetry showing we passed through peak G and it is still in one piece. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:14 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] insight in 2 hrs On Nov 26, 2018, at 10:03 AM, > > wrote: The tension builds. Insights lands (safely we hope) in 2 hours. Good luck to us! spike Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 23:24:18 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:24:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] a little fun Message-ID: Innuendos are often sexual (occasionally hinting at aggression) in nature, used by men who think that they are cute and glib. Which brings up the question: Is 'innuendo' all by itself an innuendo? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 27 16:38:09 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 10:38:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] first CRISPR babies? Message-ID: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/crispr-gene-editing-children-china/ If not now, soon. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Wed Nov 28 02:10:38 2018 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:10:38 +0000 Subject: [ExI] H+ Super-Longevity Party! - Dec. 1st Message-ID: [cid:image001.png at 01D48683.9A834940] TALKS: 3:00-6:00 PM * Dr. Greg Fahy - high-end scientific research * Liz Parrish - super-longevity * Dr. Natasha Vita-More - cutting-edge social issues * Paul Spiegel and Ryan O'Shea will introduce latest advances in social media of Humanity+ * Maria Entraigues Abramson and Gary Abramson - Longevity Bridge * Dr. Kat Cotter - health and nutrition Humanity+ will announce its upcoming Prize for Innovation, its recent conferences in China and Spain, Assemblage event in New York City, and upcoming events. Because 2019 is just around the corner, Humanity+ aims to build the super-longevity movement through its membership, projects, prizes, and publications. 6:00 PM The Party begins! Location: The Clubhouse at 5100 Colony Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 At the guard gate you will directed where to park, and the guard will point out the clubhouse (which is right behind the guard gate) If you have questions, email or call Kat Cotter at katcotter at gmail.com 310-528-6712 or email Humanity+ at info at humanityplus.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 79100 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 04:13:17 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:13:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] first CRISPR babies? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah! Fantastic, if true! Should I have some babies now, or hold off a bit until the technology is better developed? I would like to do much more than just one or two edits, I'd rather go as far as the technology can reach, thousands of edits if possible. Maybe I'll just make 10 - 20 babies now, sequence them all, freeze them and do some serious analysis to determine how much editing is needed for good quality product, given the available genotypes. Once the edits are feasible, I'll have them thawed and gestated. Because one child is not enough. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:44 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/crispr-gene-editing-children-china/ > > If not now, soon. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Schuyler Biotech PLLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 04:30:12 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:30:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:35 AM SR Ballard wrote: > > Also, there are confounding variables here as well. You know the group of > women most likely to remain virgins until marriage? Religious women. You > know the group most likely to find divorce socially unacceptable despite it > being legal? Religious women. You know who are trained to believe that they > are the property of their husbands and should submit to abuse? Religious > women. > > ### Well, yes, being Old Order Amish increases your likelihood of familial bliss. But that doesn't invalidate the statistics and does not change the advice. If you want to have an outcome, be one of the people who are most likely to have that outcome. For example, if you can curb your libido, and intentionally marry a woman with low libido, religious or not, you will most likely not be cheated on and will remain married, if somewhat tepidly. I need to object to the characterization of religious women as being trained to submit to abuse. Major religions exhort not only for women to obey their husbands but also for men to respect their women. To go back to the Amish, their women are on average happier than mainstream Americans, even without running water in the home, and that's not because they are submitting to abuse. They are not property, being closer to wards rather than chattels. If you want to point out abuse in religious societies, you have to go outside the Western world and mention for example Hindu and Muslim women. Who, surprisingly, also tend to be happier than many groups of Western women, once you correct for differences in average incomes. Or, you know, you could take yourselves to the clinic before having sex? > It?s not as if she?d be embarrassed. > Do you know any former prostitutes? > ### I used to. Haven't kept up with them lately. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 04:34:26 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 23:34:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:52 AM SR Ballard wrote: Though, also, these are not legally recognized marriages, I don?t think, > as polygamy is illegal in the States. So, the number of de facto child > marriages may be higher than the official numbers might lead us to believe. > > ### Indeed, it is illegal, but no worry, once the "fundamental transformation" of America is over, it will be trivially easy to arrange. Just ask your imam. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 05:02:41 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 00:02:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Rick Warren on religion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:42 AM Keith Henson wrote: > Humans detect a resource crisis and > undergo a behavioral switch. ### If true, I wonder what is the genetic make up of the switch. Is it something about starvation itself or rather a more abstract way of detecting resource limits? Fat people don't go to war, or do they? Is there an inherited neural system that analyzes power interactions at the social level and ratchets up individual pro-social behaviors and out-group aggression in some contexts? I think it does exist but it's not the most important factor that leads to war. For a different perspective, take the Yanomami. The bands are in a near constant state of war, even though there is no shortage of food and space. Yanomami go to war for women, either to steal or extort from weaker neighbors, or to resist attacks. They don't seem to have a behavioral switch. Or take the civilizations of ancient Middle East. Over thousands of years, from about 9000 BC to about 500 BC, there was a slow transition from small scale societies, similar to Yanomami, to stable agrarian states. The main reasons for war and collapse were attacks from outside and epidemics inside the farming societies. Nomadic barbarians were always only a few tens to hundreds of miles away, ready for pillage and rapine. Density of humans, their animals, and a multitude of parasites living among them was always creating new contagions, spreading among people suffering from diverse forms of malnutrition brought about by their staple-based diets, much different from the diverse diet of the ancestral hunter-gatherers. Again, no behavioral switch, but rather lack of immune and psychological adaptations to living among crowds fed on millet. I think your hypothesis has some merit but its reach may not be as extensive as you posit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 06:18:31 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 01:18:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Not so good Message-ID: https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2018/11/27/chinas-crispr-babies-might-have-wasted-our-last-chance/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 08:41:43 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:41:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <96AE664A-B7E0-431D-84F2-D4DDED4DA540@gmail.com> > ### Indeed, it is illegal, but no worry, once the "fundamental transformation" of America is over, it will be trivially easy to arrange. Just ask your imam. I?m really not quite sure that Islam is going to be the fundamentalist faith that I have to worry about overthrowing the secular system of law nationwide. In certain areas that might be the case, but not the country as a whole. SR Ballard From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Nov 28 08:55:00 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:55:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9977F68B-695C-4D11-B2D6-D3C0A9D9B53D@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 27, 2018, at 10:30 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:35 AM SR Ballard wrote: >> >> Also, there are confounding variables here as well. You know the group of women most likely to remain virgins until marriage? Religious women. You know the group most likely to find divorce socially unacceptable despite it being legal? Religious women. You know who are trained to believe that they are the property of their husbands and should submit to abuse? Religious women. >> > ### Well, yes, being Old Order Amish increases your likelihood of familial bliss. But that doesn't invalidate the statistics and does not change the advice. If you want to have an outcome, be one of the people who are most likely to have that outcome. For example, if you can curb your libido, and intentionally marry a woman with low libido, religious or not, you will most likely not be cheated on and will remain married, if somewhat tepidly. > > I need to object to the characterization of religious women as being trained to submit to abuse. Major religions exhort not only for women to obey their husbands but also for men to respect their women. To go back to the Amish, their women are on average happier than mainstream Americans, even without running water in the home, and that's not because they are submitting to abuse. They are not property, being closer to wards rather than chattels. If you want to point out abuse in religious societies, you have to go outside the Western world and mention for example Hindu and Muslim women. Who, surprisingly, also tend to be happier than many groups of Western women, once you correct for differences in average incomes. I have to confess that I wasn?t being specific enough when I was speaking of religious women. I mean women in apocalyptic snake handling churches, and other related types of IFB and Charismatic Churches. I don?t know any Amish people personally and so couldn?t comment. Clearly Muslim women would be included in ?religious? women, as would Hindu women. You can say all you like about what religions claim to preach, however the reality is different. By way of example: LDS (Mormon) men and women are expected to keep chaste until marriage. However the greater emphasis is put on women not to tempt men. A woman cannot exist in ?best heaven? unless her husband invites her up to it. Women can almost never exert authority over any male over age 12. Women cannot go into a Church building without a man present. Women cannot have a ?women only? meeting without a man present. Women cannot have the priesthood but must beg men to use it on their behalf. Divorce is a sin, which stains a man much more than a woman and is basically usually her fault. Sure they say, ?a man should love his wife as Christ loves the church? but will tell a woman to just love a man more if he beats her, and blame her for it. And Mormons score higher in general happiness than average, so that must have nothing to do with it? I believe it?s correlation. More religious tends to mean larger families, and socialization, and larger social circles, which are also correlated with happiness. I imagine it is the more important factor than religiosity in happiness. > >> Or, you know, you could take yourselves to the clinic before having sex? It?s not as if she?d be embarrassed. >> Do you know any former prostitutes? > > ### I used to. Haven't kept up with them lately. I have known one my whole life and currently live with her. She is my mother?s half-sister. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 01:26:45 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 20:26:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: <96AE664A-B7E0-431D-84F2-D4DDED4DA540@gmail.com> References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> <96AE664A-B7E0-431D-84F2-D4DDED4DA540@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:41 AM SR Ballard wrote: > > > ### Indeed, it is illegal, but no worry, once the "fundamental > transformation" of America is over, it will be trivially easy to arrange. > Just ask your imam. > > I?m really not quite sure that Islam is going to be the fundamentalist > faith that I have to worry about overthrowing the secular system of law > nationwide. In certain areas that might be the case, but not the country as > a whole. > > ### It doesn't take many Muslims to change the way a society works, at least the kind of society where having doubts about its legitimacy is considered bien-pensant. Some societies seem to retreat under the slightest pressure, see Sweden and their reaction to the Islamic immigration. I agree with you that there will be at first only certain areas (see Dearborn, Birmingham) but even outside of these areas the presence of a militant and hostile minority has a chilling effect on behaviors of the inert majority. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 02:13:05 2018 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 21:13:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] young people having less sex In-Reply-To: <9977F68B-695C-4D11-B2D6-D3C0A9D9B53D@gmail.com> References: <000601d47eff$056125c0$10237140$@rainier66.com> <8A469686-4B35-489E-954C-8C27A154F407@gmail.com> <9977F68B-695C-4D11-B2D6-D3C0A9D9B53D@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:55 AM SR Ballard wrote: > > You can say all you like about what religions claim to preach, however the > reality is different. By way of example: LDS (Mormon) men and women are > expected to keep chaste until marriage. However the greater emphasis is put > on women not to tempt men. A woman cannot exist in ?best heaven? unless her > husband invites her up to it. Women can almost never exert authority over > any male over age 12. Women cannot go into a Church building without a man > present. Women cannot have a ?women only? meeting without a man present. > Women cannot have the priesthood but must beg men to use it on their > behalf. Divorce is a sin, which stains a man much more than a woman and is > basically usually her fault. Sure they say, ?a man should love his wife as > Christ loves the church? but will tell a woman to just love a man more if > he beats her, and blame her for it. > > And Mormons score higher in general happiness than average, so that must > have nothing to do with it? > ### Well, it might mean that there are women who don't mind being dominated by men, and willingly stay in such relationships even if leaving is an easy option. Only 20% or less of Amish leave their faith, so there must be quite a lot of such women. Many people recoil from freedom and would abdicate choice if they can relinquish responsibility for shaping their lives. And just as importantly, many of those who embrace freedom dive headlong into insane fads and self-destructive behaviors. ---------------------------- > > I believe it?s correlation. More religious tends to mean larger families, > and socialization, and larger social circles, which are also correlated > with happiness. I imagine it is the more important factor than religiosity > in happiness. > ### But then why does loss of religion reliably atomize families? Why does population growth drop like a stone once religious fervor is exhausted? I would say that religion is part of the evolved mechanism active in maintenance of higher-density human populations. It is a form of society-level memory that preserves many fitness-enhancing behaviors, and thus in part is causative of population stability, growth, and is a net contribution to individual happiness (because being part of a disintegrating society does put the kibosh on bliss). Please note - I am a hardcore atheist, not at any risk of converting to a faith. I am also quite serious about being libertarian, and believe that "Live and let live" should be the bedrock of the righteous society - but I do note the existence of alternative and highly workable arrangements, however odious they may be. Unfortunately, evolution explores this space of workable social arrangements and separates winners from losers without concern for niceness. We can and should aim for desirable equilibria but with the understanding that our options are often limited to lesser evils. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 14:19:47 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 09:19:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever Message-ID: In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported they have made a new type of clock that is the most accurate ever, it's called a Ytterbium Lattice Clock. It's about 100 times better than any previous clock, if set at the time of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago today it would be off by less than one second. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0738-2 It's so good the main source of error is due to General Relativity, if you lift the clock up by just one centimeter the Earth's gravitational field is slightly weaker and so the clock runs noticeably faster, that may be why NIST is now working on a portable version of their Ytterbium Lattice Clock. If GPS satellites had clocks this good they'd know where they were relative to the Earth to within a centimeter and so could tell users on the ground where they were within a centimeter; and that would be more than good enough for jet fighters to automatically land on aircraft carriers without a pilot, even at night in a heavy fog in a bad storm with the deck tossing up and down. It would be by far the best instrument ever made to detect tiny changes in the gravitational field, and that would make it much easier to find things buried deep underground. The Earth just became more transparent. It might even be used to detect Gravitational Waves and Dark Matter. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 29 16:52:00 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 08:52:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007b01d48803$d9b1bad0$8d153070$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 6:20 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] The most accurate clock ever In yesterday's issue of the journal Nature Scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reported they have made a new type of clock that is the most accurate ever, it's called a Ytterbium Lattice Clock. It's about 100 times better than any previous clock, if set at the time of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago today it would be off by less than one second. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0738-2 It's so good the main source of error is due to General Relativity, if you lift the clock up by just one centimeter the Earth's gravitational field is slightly weaker and so the clock runs noticeably faster, that may be why NIST is now working on a portable version of their Ytterbium Lattice Clock. If GPS satellites had clocks this good they'd know where they were relative to the Earth to within a centimeter and so could tell users on the ground where they were within a centimeter; and that would be more than good enough for jet fighters to automatically land on aircraft carriers without a pilot, even at night in a heavy fog in a bad storm with the deck tossing up and down. It would be by far the best instrument ever made to detect tiny changes in the gravitational field, and that would make it much easier to find things buried deep underground. The Earth just became more transparent. It might even be used to detect Gravitational Waves and Dark Matter. John K Clark John just a coupla comments please. The time error measurement is (as I recall) a consequence of Special Relativity rather than General Relativity which is a tiny nit, but your extrapolation to landing a jet fighter using an atomic clock is? I ain?t buying it. We know of gravitational anomalies which would swamp the heck outta that tiny difference of (I can estimate this (a cm delta in altitude is (6.37E8)^2 or about 1 part in 4E17) and that?s just the gravitational delta, before we even translate to time dilation measured over an interval short enough to be relevant to a deck landing. We know we have gravitational anomalies at the surface of the sea waaaay bigger than that, three or more orders of magnitude. So? no landing drones on carriers that way (we already have ways to do that (because high-frequency doppler doesn?t know or care if it is dark, rainy or foggy)) but your idea might have merit in mapping gravitational anomalies on the sea floor. This whole notion might allow us to map the deep ocean floor and perhaps find stuff we want down there (maybe (I need to do some calcs on that.)) We already know of gravitational anomalies big enough to be noticed by satellites, and this leads me to another cool notion you probably know about better than I do: variation in magnetic field also produces time dilation. Reasoning: Maxwell?s equations tell us a varying magnetic field induces a magnetic field, which is an energy transfer (ja?) and Special Relativity gives us the tools to deal with that, so we take that c^2 factor (also in that E17 range) and if this new atomic clock can measure stuff down there, we might have a new magnetic field anomaly detector better than what we had before. If this is so, this would be even more cool, because the stuff we might want on the sea floor is more likely to cause a magnetic signature than it is to cause a gravitational anomaly (it?s why those metal detectors in the airport work on that principle rather than gravity.) Is this a cool time to be living or what? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 20:13:05 2018 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 21:13:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> <96AE664A-B7E0-431D-84F2-D4DDED4DA540@gmail.com> Message-ID: Actually we are corrupting the Muslims, quite a bit more than in the other direction. So the risk of a suddenly religious Sweden has not increased despite what people say elsewhere. Our share of brownshirts want to say something else but they have a rather murky agenda. But they have the ear of fox news and Pravda at the same time, fancy that. Returning militants have a capacity for problems but that's more like normal violence and gang criminals than anything really religious. /Henrik Den tors 29 nov. 2018 02:32Rafal Smigrodzki skrev: > >> ### It doesn't take many Muslims to change the way a society works, at > least the kind of society where having doubts about its legitimacy is > considered bien-pensant. Some societies seem to retreat under the slightest > pressure, see Sweden and their reaction to the Islamic immigration. I agree > with you that there will be at first only certain areas (see Dearborn, > Birmingham) but even outside of these areas the presence of a militant and > hostile minority has a chilling effect on behaviors of the inert majority. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Nov 29 21:32:25 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:32:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] child marriage, usa In-Reply-To: References: <00a901d4801d$2918b900$7b4a2b00$@rainier66.com> <010401d4803a$00d4edc0$027ec940$@rainier66.com> <37132763-CF41-4BA9-B76A-102B56F6BE1E@gmail.com> <67413B2A-5488-4433-8907-B97B7B8935E8@gmail.com> <96AE664A-B7E0-431D-84F2-D4DDED4DA540@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you. Somebody needs to say that life goes on pretty much as usual, despite the dire news the media puts out. bill w On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:18 PM Henrik Ohrstrom wrote: > Actually we are corrupting the Muslims, quite a bit more than in the other > direction. > So the risk of a suddenly religious Sweden has not increased despite what > people say elsewhere. Our share of brownshirts want to say something else > but they have a rather murky agenda. But they have the ear of fox news and > Pravda at the same time, fancy that. > Returning militants have a capacity for problems but that's more like > normal violence and gang criminals than anything really religious. > /Henrik > > Den tors 29 nov. 2018 02:32Rafal Smigrodzki > skrev: > >> >>> ### It doesn't take many Muslims to change the way a society works, at >> least the kind of society where having doubts about its legitimacy is >> considered bien-pensant. Some societies seem to retreat under the slightest >> pressure, see Sweden and their reaction to the Islamic immigration. I agree >> with you that there will be at first only certain areas (see Dearborn, >> Birmingham) but even outside of these areas the presence of a militant and >> hostile minority has a chilling effect on behaviors of the inert majority. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 spike at rainier66.com Thu Nov 29 22:31:00 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:31:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] libertarian dad jokes Message-ID: <004d01d48833$34c1c210$9e454630$@rainier66.com> This is hilarious if one is in the right frame of mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHI6HKtLGM Otherwise. not. This one's even better: https://youtu.be/Sty6mbPfIwk It helps to have a weird sense of humor. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 02:25:31 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:25:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Origin of War was Rick Warren on religion Message-ID: Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > Humans detect a resource crisis and undergo a behavioral switch. ### If true, I wonder what is the genetic make up of the switch. Is it something about starvation itself or rather a more abstract way of detecting resource limits? I have been reading Robert Sapolsky _Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst_ recently. I think a more interesting question than genetics might be where in the brain this feature resides. How to find it will take some thought, direct experiment seems unlikely to get by the ethics committee. You might have a point on genetics because whatever it is, it does not seem likely we share it with our sister species. I think it was one of the more abstract things early humans did detecting looming resource limits. It makes sense to attack *before* you are weak from hunger. > Fat people don't go to war, or do they? Is there an inherited neural system that analyzes power interactions at the social level and ratchets up individual pro-social behaviors and out-group aggression in some contexts? I think it does exist but it's not the most important factor that leads to war. According to EP "Our minds were designed by natural and sexual selection to solve adaptive problems faced by our hunter-gatherer ancestors." https://slideplayer.com/slide/796009/ Near as we can see from the archeological record war has been with us more or less the whole time. It's a consequence of overpopulation, i.e., population in excess of the capacity of the environment to feed them. Since humans are top predators, nothing except other humans will put an upper limit on population. If humans don't limit population with war they have to do it some other way, Tibet, nuns, monks and polyandry comes to mind. > For a different perspective, take the Yanomami. The bands are in a near constant state of war, even though there is no shortage of food and space. That's not actually the case. The forest is very short on protean. They, like all humans originally did, live at the ecological limit for their environment. It is a stable environment so unlike places with famines, so they fight each other all the time (or did). > Yanomami go to war for women, either to steal or extort from weaker neighbors, or to resist attacks. They don't seem to have a behavioral switch. Their population has been seriously reduced by diseases from the outside. I don't have the numbers, but I would bet long odds the warfare between villages has gone down in places with big population reductions. > Or take the civilizations of ancient Middle East. In spite of the problems of living in high density, the effect of agriculture was to about double the number of children per woman and fast population growth. This resulted in frequent wars between groups over agricultural land to the point we can see it today as the Y chromosome bottleneck. The history of our species is not a happy one, though there surely were some good times as well as bad. Keith