From hartreef at hartreef.cnc.net Mon Oct 1 13:23:05 2018 From: hartreef at hartreef.cnc.net (hartreef at hartreef.cnc.net) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:23:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] just a thought or two In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201810011323.w91DN5fc004202@mail56c28.carrierzone.com> That was the Democratic convention in Chicago. (I live 150 miles south of it, and some of the people who were still in my National Guard unit in the early 80s had been sent there.). Mayor Richard Daley (head of Chicago's long time Democratic political machine) was heavily criticized for it, especially by Senator Abe Ribicoff who spoke at the convention. The Republican convention that election was in Miami. Kyle Webb (long time lurker) On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 16:24:58 -0500, William Flynn Wallace wrote:   1968 - finished my course work and got a job teaching summer school.  Had to have a master's degree before they would hire me in the fall.  I taught for the first time ever, and was so nervous that I wrote out my lectures word for word (2 hour classes 6 times a week) and finished the master's.  Whew.  Have not been that busy since (nor have written out lectures).   Am reading '1968' by Kurlansky to find out what I missed - student riots all over the world, Republican convention in Chicago where the protesters were beaten (along with everyone there, especially journalists with cameras).  The police actually went to the 9th floor of a hotel, woke up some protesters, and beat them!!   So anyway, fascinating book - highly recommended - worldwide coverage (you won't believe what the Mexicans did to put down protest at the Summer Olympics - the one where two black men - Americans - raised their fists in black gloves in protest).   Here's the thought:  police all over the world attacked journalists and smashed cameras in a effort to stop images of brutality.   Now technology has changed all of that:  can you imagine how many cell phones would be held up taking videos if something like that happened now?     Along the same lines;  hackers have opened up government some with their hacking, and put some sunlight into what the gov. is doing.   Loss of personal privacy does not bother me like it does many.  But loss of government privacy is a great and wonderful thing.   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 possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 02:08:31 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 19:08:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Army might have found its new rifle in Colorado Springs garage Message-ID: "The Army adopted its battle rifle in 1963 and has spent 55 years looking for a replacement for the M-16 and its variants. They might have found it in Martin Grier?s Colorado Springs garage. Grier, a self-described inventor who has worked at a local bed and breakfast, built the new ?ribbon gun? with a hobbyist?s tools. It looks like a space-age toy drawn by a fifth-grader. But goofy origins and cartoon-looks aside, this could be the gun of the future. The Army is studying Grier?s gun and has ordered a military-grade prototype." https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/10/army-might-have-found-its-new-rifle-in-colorado-springs-garage/?utm_campaign=DailyEmails&utm_source=AM_Email&utm_medium=email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 10:29:13 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 11:29:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Army might have found its new rifle in Colorado Springs garage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 03:12, John Grigg wrote: > > "The Army adopted its battle rifle in 1963 and has spent 55 years looking for a replacement for the M-16 and its variants. > > They might have found it in Martin Grier?s Colorado Springs garage. Grier, a self-described inventor who has worked at a local bed and breakfast, built the new ?ribbon gun? with a hobbyist?s tools. It looks like a space-age toy drawn by a fifth-grader. > > But goofy origins and cartoon-looks aside, this could be the gun of the future. The Army is studying Grier?s gun and has ordered a military-grade prototype." > > https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/10/army-might-have-found-its-new-rifle-in-colorado-springs-garage/?utm_campaign=DailyEmails&utm_source=AM_Email&utm_medium=email > _______________________________________________ Interesting. When I tried to follow this link (from London, UK) I received a notice that due to EU GDPR law this page was not available to any EU citizens. What's the point of that? Don't they know how the Internet works? A search immediately finds alternatives. You could get clever by changing your IP address to a USA proxy, but no need in this case. Maybe it is just a CYA notice in case there are any EU GDPR problems. :) BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 10:38:15 2018 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 13:38:15 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Army might have found its new rifle in Colorado Springs garage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 1:32 pm, BillK wrote: > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 03:12, John Grigg wrote: > > > > "The Army adopted its battle rifle in 1963 and has spent 55 years > looking for a replacement for the M-16 and its variants. > > > > They might have found it in Martin Grier?s Colorado Springs garage. > Grier, a self-described inventor who has worked at a local bed and > breakfast, built the new ?ribbon gun? with a hobbyist?s tools. It looks > like a space-age toy drawn by a fifth-grader. > > > > But goofy origins and cartoon-looks aside, this could be the gun of the > future. The Army is studying Grier?s gun and has ordered a military-grade > prototype." > > > > > https://americanmilitarynews.com/2018/10/army-might-have-found-its-new-rifle-in-colorado-springs-garage/?utm_campaign=DailyEmails&utm_source=AM_Email&utm_medium=email > > _______________________________________________ > > > Interesting. When I tried to follow this link (from London, UK) I > received a notice that due to EU GDPR law this page was not available > to any EU citizens. > What's the point of that? Don't they know how the Internet works? I could access it from a boat in the Saronic Gulf! > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 14:29:49 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 10:29:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Army might have found its new rifle in Colorado Springs garage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For me one of the most interesting things about Grier?s gun is that it has a muzzle velocity of 3,600 feet per second, that's about 1,000 feet per second faster than a AK47. Despite the changes in other areas the muzzle velocity of modern military rifles isn't much different from what they were before the first world war. If Grier's gun goes into production it would be the first jump in muzzle velocity in more than a century. Muzzle wear has always been the problem but I guess with 4 barrels that problem would only be 1/4 as bad. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Oct 2 22:49:21 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 15:49:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Goblin returns! Message-ID: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06885-1 Just a report on spotting it again. Too bad there aren?t a fleet of probes nearby to get a closer look. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 13:38:22 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 09:38:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury Message-ID: I wonder if all those who thought it was OK for Bill Clinton to be impeached because he perjured himself about sex between 2 consenting adults also think Kavanaugh should not receive a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful jobs in the country because he also committing perjury when he said he wasn't guilty of attempted rape . And that's not all, Kavanaugh testified that he never drank to the point of losing control but yesterday a letter surfaced written in Kavanaugh's own hand describing himself and his friends as, and I quote "loud, obnoxious drunks with prolific pukers". Kavanaugh said he only heard of a Atlantic Magazine article about a second accuser who said a drunken Kavanaugh slammed her against a wall and thrust his penis in her face, but we now know that days before the article was published Kavanaugh somehow got wind of it and was tampering with potential witnesses to get them to all sing from the same playbook. And when Kavanaugh said in his yearbook that he was a member of the "Renate alumni" does anyone really believe him when he said it didn't mean Renate was a slut it just mente he was a friend of Renate? On a different subject the New York Times just published a massive investigation of Donald Trump's finances, it took them over a year to write the article, it's so long they had to hire extra people at their printing plant. It shows that he is not a self made billionaire as he claimed but got rich from his daddy's money (he was legally a millionaire at the age of 8) and by cheating on his taxes. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 17:13:36 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 13:13:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In my opinion, the absolute stupidest move he made was claiming he was a virgin who didn't drink to excess and only drank beer. A clear lie given the evidence, and a lie that is clearly able to be figured out in an extremely easy manner. What the hell did he think was going to happen--that he would be able to tamper with every person who ever saw him in a blackout? Something about being in a blackout seems like it would make that difficult.... What a buffoon. If there was any doubt in people's minds that he did assault Ms. Ford, I would hope that his angry outbursts, question dodging, and obvious lies under oath will demonstrate to them that he is probably guilty of the act. Also, some people are complaining about how this isn't 'innocent until proven guilty'--but this is not a trial, it is a confirmation hearing. It is completely within the law, and the main point of the hearing, to assess his character. He also has given the swing voting Republican senators a perfect excuse to vote nay--now they can say it's because he lied under oath, without even having to address his sexual assault allegations. Truly an idiot unfit to rule for the rest of his life in the highest court in the nation. Here's hoping Americans (and our senators) have enough sense to toss this guy in the garbage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Oct 3 19:19:57 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:19:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005d01d45b4e$12b49bf0$381dd3d0$@rainier66.com> This isn?t the place for it John. Let it go man. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 6:38 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Perjury I wonder if all those who thought it was OK for Bill Clinton to be ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Oct 3 19:25:25 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:25:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 10:14 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury >?In my opinion, the absolute stupidest move he made was claiming he was a virgin who didn't drink to ? This isn?t the place for it Will. The topic is OK if we have some kind of take on it that might be of interest to ExI, such as a legal innovation we are witnessing: having what amounts to a job interview influenced by a criminal accusation. Criminal accusations put the burden of proof on the accuser. So? if a job interview is to take into account a criminal accusation, the accusation must be proven by the standards of a criminal court. Otherwise it must be dismissed and not influence the job interview. To me that is the takeaway of all this, not which person gets to be on the SCOTUS, which is nearly irrelevant in my view when the US federal government is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy as soon as the Chinese get a clue and stop loaning it money. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 20:42:22 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:42:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The Supreme Court is far more relevant to a H+ agenda than the president ever could be. With Kavanaugh in that seat, I think there would be a whole lot more obstacles to ethically sticky scientific advancements--cloning, stem cells, synthetic wombs, and the like. Kavanaugh is kinda worse than Trump because at least Trump might OK those things from a business standpoint, but Kavanaugh is a run-of-the-mill dweeb who seems far too supportive of right wing social politics--more than Trump--to be advancing science. But honestly, I replied to this because I agree with John for once and I wanted to relish the moment before it was gone. (I wish that was a joke) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Oct 3 20:59:24 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 13:59:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001201d45b5b$f782c100$e6884300$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury >?The Supreme Court is far more relevant to a H+ agenda than the president ever could be?But honestly, I replied to this because I agree with John for once and I wanted to relish the moment before it was gone. (I wish that was a joke)? Ja I am with you there. The reason I take interest in this particular train-wreck is in the legal angle of it, rather than any particular view on any of the players. We think of the confirmation process as a job interview. But now we have what appears to be an innovation, a scary one: where a candidate can be accused of a crime to influence the interview. We know the standards of proof necessary to convict of a crime. If a job candidate has been tried in court and found not guilty, we must presume innocence of that person, and disregard the accusation. But if one is accused, tried, found not guilty, then the accusation and trial form a kind of second-class evidence of some guilt, we cross an important legal line: a person becomes slightly guilty upon accusation, even if found not guilty. That makes accusation a weapon. Libertarians in general are watching this case closely. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 21:09:22 2018 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 15:09:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <001201d45b5b$f782c100$e6884300$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <001201d45b5b$f782c100$e6884300$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: "This makes accusation a weapon." this. A thousand times this. It's Harry Reid dismantling the filibuster all over again. What is with politicians, usually Democrats, lobbing nuclear hand grenades and destroying legal infrastructure that has, and will again, protect them when they're in power, just to win one little battle?!? It's like Chesterton's Fence means nothing to these people. If the Democrats don't think the weaponization of un- or barely- substantiated accusations won't be used against them when the shoe's on the other foot, they're out of their minds. Are they really so short sighted? On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:01 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Will Steinberg > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Perjury > > > > >?The Supreme Court is far more relevant to a H+ agenda than the president > ever could be?But honestly, I replied to this because I agree with John for > once and I wanted to relish the moment before it was gone. (I wish that > was a joke)? > > > > > > Ja I am with you there. > > > > The reason I take interest in this particular train-wreck is in the legal > angle of it, rather than any particular view on any of the players. > > > > We think of the confirmation process as a job interview. But now we have > what appears to be an innovation, a scary one: where a candidate can be > accused of a crime to influence the interview. We know the standards of > proof necessary to convict of a crime. If a job candidate has been tried > in court and found not guilty, we must presume innocence of that person, > and disregard the accusation. But if one is accused, tried, found not > guilty, then the accusation and trial form a kind of second-class evidence > of some guilt, we cross an important legal line: a person becomes slightly > guilty upon accusation, even if found not guilty. > > > > That makes accusation a weapon. > > > > Libertarians in general are watching this case closely. > > > > 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 natasha at natasha.cc Wed Oct 3 20:58:00 2018 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 13:58:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20181003135800.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.0e69ed2552.mailapi@email17.godaddy.com> Relevant to H+ is legislation on human rights for enhancing, FDA rules, etc. I agree with this. But I do not enjoy reading posts that dis others based on assumption. Many right wingers support science and H+ ideas. Natasha --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury From: "Will Steinberg" Date: 10/3/18 1:42 pm To: "ExI chat list" The Supreme Court is far more relevant to a H+ agenda than the president ever could be. With Kavanaugh in that seat, I think there would be a whole lot more obstacles to ethically sticky scientific advancements--cloning, stem cells, synthetic wombs, and the like. Kavanaugh is kinda worse than Trump because at least Trump might OK those things from a business standpoint, but Kavanaugh is a run-of-the-mill dweeb who seems far too supportive of right wing social politics--more than Trump--to be advancing science. But honestly, I replied to this because I agree with John for once and I wanted to relish the moment before it was gone. (I wish that was a joke) _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list 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 Wed Oct 3 21:21:06 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 14:21:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <001201d45b5b$f782c100$e6884300$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004e01d45b5e$ff781420$fe683c60$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Darin Sunley Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 2:09 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury >>?"This makes accusation a weapon." >? A thousand times this. >? the weaponization of un- or barely- substantiated accusations won't be used against them when the shoe's on the other foot, they're out of their minds? They aren?t the ones I worry about. The one I worry about is us. If they use this on one guy and it works, they will use it on the next and the next. Eventually the next guy is us. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 3 22:17:15 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 15:17:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <001201d45b5b$f782c100$e6884300$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 2:11 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > Are they really so short sighted? Yes. And that's the real problem. Long sighted politicians are getting tossed aside by both sides, in favor of whoever can make the most extreme hype right now. A case for moderation, and for long sightedness, could win a lot of the voters being turned off by both parties. If, say, the Transhumanist Party were to try to seriously field candidates, pushing moderate views with medium-to-long term plans could be its #1 advantage. Not running a presidential candidate right now, and instead sticking to state and Congressional races for an election cycle or two, would be a good way to demonstrate this (build up support first, so as to have a serious chance in a future presidential contest). From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 4 00:08:01 2018 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 17:08:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers Message-ID: <000601d45b76$51018670$f3049350$@natasha.cc> Hi - Does anyone have a list of worldwide transhumanist organizations? I also need a list of books written by transhumanists or a website that list the books. This is for the short 101 book I am writing on Transhumanism. Please reach out to me! Thank you - Natasha Dr. Natasha Vita-More Executive Director, Humanity+, Inc. Author and Co-Editor: The Transhumanist Reader Lead Science Researcher: Memory Project Professor, Graduate and Undergraduate Departments, UAT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 01:54:57 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:54:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM wrote: > *>The topic is OK if we have some kind of take on it that might be of > interest to ExI, such as a legal innovation we are witnessing: having what > amounts to a job interview influenced by a criminal accusation. * > Well shouldn't a job interview be influenced by a criminal accusation? E specially when Dr. Ford warned her congressman abut Kavanaugh before he was even picked and was just on the short list of candidates, especially when Ford passed a lie detector test and Kavanaugh didn't, especially when Ford had no reason to lie but Kavanaugh did. And if you're telling a lie you generally don't want the FBI to investigate it but Ford wanted the FBI to do just that,however if you're not telling the truth then you don't want a FBI investigating it and Kavanaugh made it very clear he didn't want the FBI looking into this matter. I admit Kavanaugh guilt has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt but this is not a trial, its a job interview for a cushy lifetime job in which he will be judging us for perhaps the next 40 years. In this case I think the burden of proof should be on the job applicant and if I were a Senator I would't vote for him unless he could convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that he is fit for the job, and I don't think Kavanaugh can meet that standard but a lot of other people can. Actually I think some on this list could. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 02:08:57 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 22:08:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Criminal accusations don't even need to enter into the equation. He perjured himself clearly on numerous occasions when he was under oath. It's very simple. It's disrespectful to the American people. Regarding H+: what is the ideal court system for a transhumanist country? And when can we start a country? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 4 04:46:19 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:46:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 6:55 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 3:32 PM > wrote: >>?The topic is OK if we have some kind of take on it that might be of interest to ExI, such as a legal innovation we are witnessing: having what amounts to a job interview influenced by a criminal accusation. >?Well shouldn't a job interview be influenced by a criminal accusation? Not unless it is proven. Otherwise an uncorroborated accusation becomes a weapon. Those can be manufactured at no cost and no risk. Do we want weapons that can be created in arbitrary quantities? This one is used on your adversary? this time. Do you know who it will be used against later? If you had a pristine childhood and youth, that is no protection at all if an accusation suffices as proof of guilt. >?lifetime job in which he will be judging us for perhaps the next 40 years? John K Clark A SCOTUS justice does not judge us, she judges congress. The closer she stays to the constitution, the better. Any criminal accusation must be proven in a criminal court, rather than hurled at a job interviewer. Of course if the current subject is confirmed, that option is still open. If convicted then he would be impeached. If not convicted, the accusation is irrelevant. Arbitrarily many unproven accusations are irrelevant. That is how we define the concept of presumption of innocence. Without that presumption, we are back where we were in 1693. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 09:18:20 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:18:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers In-Reply-To: <000601d45b76$51018670$f3049350$@natasha.cc> References: <000601d45b76$51018670$f3049350$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 01:30, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Hi - > Does anyone have a list of worldwide transhumanist organizations? > I also need a list of books written by transhumanists or a website that list the books. > > This is for the short 101 book I am writing on Transhumanism. This should be more than you need! You will probably need to trim drastically. :) Organisations Books BillK From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 15:01:07 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:01:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike, Let's ignore the assault allegations for a second (though I personally lean towards believing them) and look at whether he perjured himself regarding his youthful habits. Do you not think it is a sufficient judge of character, for the job interview, to observe him saying he didn't drink liquor/to excess and was a virgin in high school? If you look at his calendar and yearbook, and were ever in high school, it should be clear that he lied. Steps: 1) Realize he did admit to drinking in high school. 1.5) (Realize he did brag about drinking in his calendar/yearbook) 2) Realize that anyone who drank in high school drank to excess/blackout at some point, and probably drank liquor. 3) Conclude. Not to mention his angry decorum and dodging of questions. The reactions he gave to those questions should give you all you need to sufficiently judge his character. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 4 15:26:07 2018 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:26:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [H+M] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers In-Reply-To: <000001d45bf2$cfd9fcd0$6f8df670$@gmail.com> References: <000601d45b76$51018670$f3049350$@natasha.cc> <000001d45bf2$cfd9fcd0$6f8df670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004e01d45bf6$928ccb10$b7a66130$@natasha.cc> Excellent! Thank you. From: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Andres Grases Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 7:59 AM To: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com; humanityplusboard at googlegroups.com; 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [H+M] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers Importance: High Hi Natasha, In my website there are four sections that may help you find in one place a good chunk of the info you?re looking for. Please consider that the organizations and books I include in these sections are not exclusively on the strict realm of transhumanism, but also around emerging technologies in general, with an emphasis on longevity and life extension. It?s very likely that not all of them fit into what you need, but I?m confident you will find many references that may meet your criteria. For Associations and Foundations in general take a look here: http://transhumanplus.com/15-associations-and-foundations/ For Research Institutions here: http://transhumanplus.com/16-research-institutions/ For books here: http://transhumanplus.com/books/ In the specific field of Cryonics I have these Associations listed: http://transhumanplus.com/associations/ Just in case it may also be of your interest, I have a list of films and a list of magazines that relate in one way or another to transhumanism and/or emerging technologies: Films: http://transhumanplus.com/films/ Magazines: http://transhumanplus.com/magazines/ In the case of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, I have it listed in the section ?Association and Foundations? (the first list above), and also in the sub-section ?Service Providers? of the section ?Cryonics/Cryopreservation? of my website. Actually, I?m not quite sure if it fits better as part of the list ?Associations and Foundations? in general, or in the list of ?Service Providers? of the section ?Cryonics/Cryopreservation?, or in both, as I have it listed now. Hope you find the above links somehow useful for your work. Please do not hesitate to reach me if you have any questions. Regarding the case of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, I would appreciate any comment from you or from Dr. Max More to what I described. Thanks, Andr?s Grases Brice?o Mechanical Engineer, MBA (+34) 610 119 185 https://www.linkedin.com/in/andresgrases/ Website: http://transhumanplus.com/ De: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com > En nombre de Natasha Vita-More Enviado el: jueves, 4 de octubre de 2018 2:08 Para: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com ; humanityplusboard at googlegroups.com ; 'ExI chat list' > Asunto: [H+M] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers Importancia: Alta Hi - Does anyone have a list of worldwide transhumanist organizations? I also need a list of books written by transhumanists or a website that list the books. This is for the short 101 book I am writing on Transhumanism. Please reach out to me! Thank you ? Natasha Dr. Natasha Vita-More Executive Director, Humanity+, Inc. Author and Co-Editor: The Transhumanist Reader Lead Science Researcher: Memory Project Professor, Graduate and Undergraduate Departments, UAT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanity+ Members" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hplusmembers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanity+ Members" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hplusmembers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 971 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 4 16:19:20 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:19:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003301d45bfe$02183a30$0648ae90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 8:01 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury Spike, >?Let's ignore the assault allegations ? >?The reactions he gave to those questions should give you all you need to sufficiently judge his character. Ja to all. There is irony upon irony here. My suggestion would be that if a criminal allegation is being made, it must be proven in a criminal court. Otherwise it cannot be admissible even in a job interview. If an appropriate job interview question is raised, I am perfectly fine with it. If the accusers had just gone with the high-school drunk argument to start with, then that mighta worked (at least better than this wild gambit did.) But that accusation of a criminal offense needs to be proven in criminal court. Otherwise we weaponize accusations. Note I don?t like this candidate either (for 4th amendment reasons.) I can see that prosecutorial overreach has created a lot of sympathy for him. If weaponized accusation is used on an opponent this time and we go along with it and it works, where does that lead? Cool fortunes are being made over on PredictIt, none of them mine. Dammit. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 4 16:42:35 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:42:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] upside to all this: was: RE: Perjury Message-ID: <001e01d45c01$411adff0$c3509fd0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 9:19 AM Subject: RE: [ExI] Perjury From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 8:01 AM To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury Spike, >>?Let's ignore the assault allegations ? >>?The reactions he gave to those questions should give you all you need to sufficiently judge his character. >?Ja to all? >?Cool fortunes are being made over on PredictIt, none of them mine. Dammit. Spike Something good is coming of all this methinks. If the perjury charge is pursued, it is easy enough to foresee the same logjam: hairsplitting over the definition of drinking to excess, lack of witnesses documenting blackouts etc, none of which are likely to rise to the level of evidence needed for a conviction on a criminal case. A convincing case could be made that this candidate was a drunk (which isn?t a criminal offense) but at the same time that evidence is insufficient to establish perjury (which is a criminal offense.) Criminal charges presume innocence and require criminal prosecutor-level evidence. So again we have criminal-level accusations with job-interviewey evidence. Here?s the good part: In our world today, eeeeeeverybody is carrying cell phone cameras. We can be sure that wild college parties are still happening, at Yale, at Harvard, at everywhere (and I see those two places as among the biggest losers here (your mental picture of Yale changed (so has mine.))) So, we can now fully expect that the level of evidence expected is now a video. Any verbal accusation will go straight to the trash can (which is where it belongs if it is a criminal accusation with only that level of evidence.) I hafta see this as a good thing overall. More cameras mean more people acting in a more circumspect manner. Cops are more likely to behave themselves, belligerent drunks can be documented with time-stamped video, plenty of important people will start to carry personal recording cameras, which will catch more bad guys and exonerate more good guys. It?s all good. Our own loss of privacy has its upside: the bad guys lose privacy too. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 17:37:14 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 13:37:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <003301d45bfe$02183a30$0648ae90$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> <003301d45bfe$02183a30$0648ae90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:22 PM wrote: > > > My suggestion would be that if a criminal allegation is being made, it > must be proven in a criminal court. Otherwise it cannot be admissible even > in a job interview. > Oh, so you'd rather not be alerted to potential problems even after the statute of limitations has expired? In this case, Kavanaugh would have sailed through the confirmation and we'd be stuck with him. Now there's at least a chance he won't be confirmed. One could argue that after the statute of limitations has expired, it's no longer a criminal allegation. But I still think unproven allegations should be considered. In many cases of sexual assault there's not enough evidence to go to trial. That doesn't mean they should be ignored. -Dave > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 18:05:13 2018 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:05:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> <003301d45bfe$02183a30$0648ae90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: " In many cases of sexual assault there's not enough evidence to go to trial. That doesn't mean they should be ignored." Yes, this is precisely what it means to weaponize accusations. On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 11:40 AM Dave Sill wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:22 PM wrote: > >> >> >> My suggestion would be that if a criminal allegation is being made, it >> must be proven in a criminal court. Otherwise it cannot be admissible even >> in a job interview. >> > > Oh, so you'd rather not be alerted to potential problems even after the > statute of limitations has expired? In this case, Kavanaugh would have > sailed through the confirmation and we'd be stuck with him. Now there's at > least a chance he won't be confirmed. > > One could argue that after the statute of limitations has expired, it's no > longer a criminal allegation. But I still think unproven allegations should > be considered. In many cases of sexual assault there's not enough evidence > to go to trial. That doesn't mean they should be ignored. > > -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 spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 4 18:45:21 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:45:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> <003301d45bfe$02183a30$0648ae90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006401d45c12$6851e030$38f5a090$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dave Sill Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 10:37 AM To: Extropy chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:22 PM > wrote: >>?My suggestion would be that if a criminal allegation is being made, it must be proven in a criminal court. Otherwise it cannot be admissible even in a job interview. >?Oh, so you'd rather not be alerted to potential problems even after the statute of limitations has expired? Depends on how you look at statute of limitations. The accuser testified she feared she would suffocate. So she is actually accusing the defendant of? attempted involuntary manslaughter. There is no statute of limitations on that. The business about muffling screams really muddies the waters, because now the sexual assault part of the story is nearly irrelevant. If one is facing death, one cares little about the configuration of one?s clothing. >? In this case, Kavanaugh would have sailed through the confirmation and we'd be stuck with him? Not at all. If criminal infractions can be proven, he will be impeached. >?Now there's at least a chance he won't be confirmed? -Dave Ja. But recall, the libertarian Rand Paul was planning a down vote. Then if any AAAANNNY? other partisan voted down (which is fairly likely) then he was out. Now, Rand Paul is on board, even if he doesn?t want to be: he can?t prove he wasn?t swayed by an unproven allegation. Same with the two or three from the other side of the aisle. The whole thing is filled with paradox for sure. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 4 19:12:10 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 12:12:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] chess olympics Message-ID: <009401d45c16$26a2b3e0$73e81ba0$@rainier66.com> The worldwide chess Olympics is going on. Going into the last round tomorrow, the USA is a razor-thin margin ahead of the Chinese. Tomorrow those two monster teams play each other for the gold. If the two teams draw, the USA gets gold. I am estimating 25% Chinese win, 35% chance USA win, 30% chance draw. Funny thing: here we are on the verge of an international gold medal, not a word about it anywhere in the popular press. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:29:33 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:29:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] chess olympics In-Reply-To: <009401d45c16$26a2b3e0$73e81ba0$@rainier66.com> References: <009401d45c16$26a2b3e0$73e81ba0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: https://www.chess.com/news/view/chess-olympiad-poland-continues-remarkable-run-beats-usa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 20:50:24 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 16:50:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:50 AM wrote: > >?Well shouldn't a job interview be influenced by a criminal accusation? > > > > > *Not unless it is proven. * > Spike, that's just nuts. Would you hire me as the night watchman for your fireworks factory if you couldn't prove I'm an arsonist but knew there was a 49% probability I was? You're using the same criteria for a job interview as you do for a criminal trial when even in a civil trial I don't have to prove anything to win I just have to show that the preponderance of evidence is on my side, 51% would be good enough. And this isn't even a civil trial! Kavanaugh does NOT have a right to be promoted to a cushy job on the supreme court and a senator is under no obligation to prove he is unfit for the job, Kavanaugh needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is. > > *Otherwise an uncorroborated accusation *[...] This accusation has been corroborated it just hasn't been proven. CERN needs 5 sigma to declare they have discovered a new particle and there isn't a 5 sigma signal that Kavanaugh is guilty of attempted rape, but I think there is a 3 sigma signal and maybe a little more, not proven but enough to be very interesting and merit further investigation. But of course we're not doing that, the FBI "investigation" was crippled from the start by the White House telling them what they could and could not investigate, and witnesses came to them and asked to be interview (a big step because its perjury to lie to a FBI agent) but the FBI said they couldn't interview them because they weren't on the White Houses list. It seems to me that the Republicans don't want to know the truth, or at least I can't think of another explanation for their behavior. However as far as perjury is concerned there is enough evidence that even someone as picky as CERN would be comfortable is saying it has been discovered that Bret Kavanaugh commitment perjury. But perhaps perjury is only important if Bill Clinton did it. And even if you disregard all that there is still the matter of impartiality and judicial temperament which Kavanaugh dramatically demonstrated on live TV he most certainly does not have. That's why over 1700 law professors signed a petition saying Kavanaugh should not be confirmed: Signed, 1,700+ Law Professors (and Counting) > > becomes a weapon. Yes, but being a fan of the second amendment you must know that weapons are not inherently evil, sometimes they can be a tool that prevents injustice and incompetence. > *>A SCOTUS justice does not judge us, she judges congress. * > If you look at a list of Supreme Court decisions the plaintiff is almost never congress, its a person. > *> The closer she stays to the constitution, the better.* If there was only one objectively correct way to interpret the constitution then we wouldn't even need a Supreme Court, but there isn't so we do. For example, the constitution says we have freedom of the press, but does that just mean we are free to press ink and lead type onto paper or does it also mean we can say whatever we want on the internet even though that was certainly not part of the framers "original intent"? And incidentally, Kavanaugh interprets the constitution to mean we haven't been giving the president enough power for the last 45 years or so, he says the Supreme Court "wrongly decided" in 1974 when it unanimously ruled that a president must obey a criminal subpoena. Of the list of 25 very conservative Judges Trump said he would pick from Kavanaugh was the only one that called for such a radical expansion of executive power. I think that's why trump picked him. > *That is how we define the concept of presumption of innocence.* For a criminal trial NOT for a job interview, a company would soon go bankrupt if it assumed that anybody who walked through the door would make a great employee! Kavanaugh just walked through the door and I don't want to go bankrupt but I expect I will, I think Kavanaugh will get the job he thinks he has a God given right to have because Republican senators have no integrity and are so utterly spineless they let Trump lead them by the nose. I hope I'm wrong but I fear for the future of your fireworks factory. John K Clark . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 4 21:25:47 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:25:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007901d45c28$d1829430$7487bc90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 12:50 AM > wrote: >>>?Well shouldn't a job interview be influenced by a criminal accusation? >> Not unless it is proven. >?Spike, that's just nuts?John K Clark Ja to all, however? If the senate allows an unproven accusation count as evidence, then we all have evidence against us, and these are serious virtual charges indeed. All of us have them, we all do. It doesn?t matter if we are seeking a job, or? if we are in a custody battle after a bitter divorce. If we allow an accusation to be used as evidence, it becomes a weapon. If it can stand up in court as evidence without evidence, we have given away the presumption of innocence. We learned in 1693 that this is a bad idea. I noticed the betting on PredictIt has swung to the right about 5 to 6 points this week. What I think is happening there is that bettors are speculating that voters will realize, in their quieter moments, that this could have been me. The women are realizing it could have been her husband, her father, her brothers, her uncles, nephews, cousins, it could have even been her. Read on please. There was something that really caught my attention, something no one really talked about much. The third accuser, Julie Swetnick, testified she was at about a dozen parties where women were drugged, raped, etc, and saw Kavanaugh by the punch bowl. Was he by the punchbowl in all ten parties? Or just one? Which one? OK then, we extrapolate from there to he was the one who spiked (no relation) the punchbowl, if the punchbowl was spiked (no relation.) However? she was five years senior to the defendant when all this took place, so she could well be considered the responsible adult in the room. We don?t know if the defendant knew there were drugged women being raped at that moment somewhere in the house, but we do know that the accuser knew and made no attempt to rescue her, no apparent attempt to intervene, made no panic calls to the constables, made no police report after the fact, didn?t even offer emotional support to victim. So? why isn?t Julie Swetnick being charged for accomplice to rape? Because? no victim has come forth. A corpse in necessary, or at least a missing person for a murder allegation, ja? So where is the rape victim who claims she was the one who was drugged and raped at the party where Julie Swetnick was an apparently complicit witness? Why isn?t Julie being charged? Isn?t there enough evidence to put her away? She made accusation of herself herself, and if an accusation is evidence, we have enough evidence. It?s a confession, ja? But I will give her credit where credit is due: she looks terrific for 58. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 4 22:09:58 2018 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 15:09:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [H+M] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers In-Reply-To: <000001d45bf2$cfd9fcd0$6f8df670$@gmail.com> References: <000601d45b76$51018670$f3049350$@natasha.cc> <000001d45bf2$cfd9fcd0$6f8df670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00f901d45c2e$fd2e2da0$f78a88e0$@natasha.cc> Hi Andres and all - I went over the Associations and Foundations and selected groups that are relevant to transhumanism. I removed groups that are outdated or not directly related to transhumanism, per se, and added a few new information. Some of the text needs to be changed from Spanish to English, etc. If I did not list your book or organization, please email me right away! ORGANIZATIONS Alcor Life Extension Foundation Asociaci?n Transhumanista Latinoamericana Association Fran?aise Transhumaniste Christian Transhumanist Association Future of Humanity Institute Humanity+ Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Longevity Alliance Life Extension Foundation Lifeboat Foundation London Futurists Longevity Bridge Maximum Life Foundation Millennial Project Methuselah Foundation Mormon Transhumanist Association Network Transumanisti Italiani OpenCog Foundation | Building better minds together RescueElders | Society for the Rescue of Our Elders SENS Research Foundation The Brain Preservation Foundation Transhumanism Australia U.S. Transhumanist Party World Future Society BOOKS 1312 Paradiso, Divine Comedy, Inferno (1320). | Dante Alighieri 1949 The Cocktail Party | T.S. Eliot 1957 New Bottles for New Wine | Julian Huxley 1959 The Future of Man | Teilhard de Chardin 1972 Man into Superman: The Startling Potential of Human Evolution And How To Be Part of It | Robert Ettinger 1973 Up-Wingers: A Futurist Manifesto by F. M. Esfandiary 1987 Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology | K. Eric Drexler 1989 Are You a Transhuman? Monitoring and Stimulating Your Personal Rate of Growth in a Rapidly Changing World | FM Esfandiary (aka 2030) 1994 How and Why We Age | Leonard Hayflick 1995 The Hedonistic Imperative | David Pearce 1998 Last Flesh: Life in the Transhuman Era | Christopher Dewdney 1999 The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging | Aubrey De Grey 2001 The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence by Kurzweil 2002 Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution | Francis Fukuyama 2002 Redesigning Humans: Choosing our genes, changing our future | Gregory Stock 2002 The Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging by S. Jay Olshansky 2004 Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond To The Redesigned Human Of The Future 2004 Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life | Richard A. L. Jones 2005 Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto | Simon S. Young 2005 Fantastic Voyage: Live Long Enough to Live Forever by Kurzweil 2005 Radical Evolution: The Promise and Peril of Enhancing Our Minds, Our Bodies and What It Means to Be Human | Joel Garreau 2005 The Prospect of Immortality: Robert C. W. Ettinger, Charles Tandy, R. Michael Perry 2006 The End of History and the Last Man | Francis Fukuyama 2006 The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology by Kurzweil 2007 Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime by Aubrey De Grey 2007 The Emotion Machine by Marvin Minsky 2009 Nanotechnology and Society | Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin 2009 Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever | Ray Kurzweil; Terry Grossman 2011 Humanity 2.0: What It Means to Be Human Past, Present and Future | Steve Fuller 2011 Transhumanism and Its Critics | (numerous authors) 2012 (Reprint Edition) An Optimist?s Tour of the Future | Mark Stevenson 2012 How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed by Kurzweil 2013 El fin del envejecimiento | Aubrey De Grey 2013 Humanity Enhanced: Genetic Choice and the Challenge for Liberal Democracies | Russell Blackford 2013 Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology Will Change Civilization | Eric Drexler 2013 The Transhumanist Reader | Natasha Vita-More & Max More 2013 The Transhumanist Wager eBook | Zoltan Istvan 2014 A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century | Ilia Stambler 2014 Abundance: The Future is Better Than You Think | Peter H. Diamandis, Steven Kotler 2014 Intelligence Unbound: The Future of Uploaded and Machine Minds | Russell Blackford, Damien Broderick 2014 Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves | Ed Regis, George Church 2014 Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies | Nick Bostrom 2015 A Dangerous Master: How to Keep Technology from Slipping Beyond Our Control | Wendell Wallach 2015 Aging: The Longevity Dividend by S. Jay Olshansky 2015 Exponential Organizations by Salim Ismail 2015 Surviving AI: The promise and peril of artificial intelligence | Calum Chace 2015 Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future by Elon Musk 2016 Advancing Conversations: Advocate For An Indefinite Human Lifespan by D. Lain, A. de Grey 2016 AGI Revolution: An Inside View of the Rise of Artificial General Intelligence | Ben Goertzel 2016 Cracking the Aging Code | Josh Mitteldorf, Dorion Sagan 2016 Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics | Wendell Wallach 2016 Technoprog (Pr?sence/Essai) by Didier Coeurnelle 2016 The Abolition of Aging: The forthcoming radical extension of healthy human longevity by D. Wood 2016 The Economic Singularity: Artificial intelligence and the death of capitalism | Calum Chace 2016 The Ethics of Human Enhancement: Understanding the Debate | Steve Clarke, Julian Savulescu 2017 Abolici?n del envejecimiento | David Wood 2017 Abundance by Peter H. Diamandis 2017 Can Biotechnology Abolish Suffering? | David Pearce, Magnus Vinding 2017 Juvenescence: Investing in the age of longevity | Mellon Jim, Chalabi Al 2017 Mejoramiento Humano: Juli?n Savulescu, Nick Bostrom 2017 Science Fiction and the Moral Imagination: Visions, Minds, Ethics | Russell Blackford 2018 Artificial Intelligence and the Two Singularities | Calum Chace 2018 La muerte de la muerte: La posibilidad cient?fica de la inmortalidad f?sica y su defensa moral | Jos? Luis Cordeiro, David Wood Thanks, Natasha From: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Andres Grases Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 7:59 AM To: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com; humanityplusboard at googlegroups.com; 'ExI chat list' Subject: RE: [H+M] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers Importance: High Hi Natasha, In my website there are four sections that may help you find in one place a good chunk of the info you?re looking for. Please consider that the organizations and books I include in these sections are not exclusively on the strict realm of transhumanism, but also around emerging technologies in general, with an emphasis on longevity and life extension. It?s very likely that not all of them fit into what you need, but I?m confident you will find many references that may meet your criteria. For Associations and Foundations in general take a look here: http://transhumanplus.com/15-associations-and-foundations/ For Research Institutions here: http://transhumanplus.com/16-research-institutions/ For books here: http://transhumanplus.com/books/ In the specific field of Cryonics I have these Associations listed: http://transhumanplus.com/associations/ Just in case it may also be of your interest, I have a list of films and a list of magazines that relate in one way or another to transhumanism and/or emerging technologies: Films: http://transhumanplus.com/films/ Magazines: http://transhumanplus.com/magazines/ In the case of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, I have it listed in the section ?Association and Foundations? (the first list above), and also in the sub-section ?Service Providers? of the section ?Cryonics/Cryopreservation? of my website. Actually, I?m not quite sure if it fits better as part of the list ?Associations and Foundations? in general, or in the list of ?Service Providers? of the section ?Cryonics/Cryopreservation?, or in both, as I have it listed now. Hope you find the above links somehow useful for your work. Please do not hesitate to reach me if you have any questions. Regarding the case of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, I would appreciate any comment from you or from Dr. Max More to what I described. Thanks, Andr?s Grases Brice?o Mechanical Engineer, MBA (+34) 610 119 185 https://www.linkedin.com/in/andresgrases/ Website: http://transhumanplus.com/ De: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com > En nombre de Natasha Vita-More Enviado el: jueves, 4 de octubre de 2018 2:08 Para: hplusmembers at googlegroups.com ; humanityplusboard at googlegroups.com ; 'ExI chat list' > Asunto: [H+M] Request: List of Transhumanist Organizations and Books written by H+ers Importancia: Alta Hi - Does anyone have a list of worldwide transhumanist organizations? I also need a list of books written by transhumanists or a website that list the books. This is for the short 101 book I am writing on Transhumanism. Please reach out to me! Thank you ? Natasha Dr. Natasha Vita-More Executive Director, Humanity+, Inc. Author and Co-Editor: The Transhumanist Reader Lead Science Researcher: Memory Project Professor, Graduate and Undergraduate Departments, UAT -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanity+ Members" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hplusmembers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanity+ Members" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hplusmembers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 799 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 971 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 23:24:18 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:24:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <007901d45c28$d1829430$7487bc90$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> <007901d45c28$d1829430$7487bc90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:29 PM wrote: *> **we have given away the presumption of innocence* Yes, and good riddance too for everything except a criminal trial!. The constitution says everybody has the right of life and liberty, so that right should not be taken away from you unless it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court that you violated a criminal law. But the constitution does not say Brett Kavanaugh has a right to be on the Supreme court for life, so the burden of proof is on Kavanaugh > >*why isn?t Julie Swetnick being charged for accomplice to rape?* Because, with the important exception of perjury committed by Kavanaugh, there isn't enough evidence to charge anybody with any violation of criminal law,. but there is enough evidence for a rational person to not hire somebody for a job. However if you want to hire a suspected arsonist to be the night watchman at your fireworks factory you have every right to do so, but I choose not to and because of that I have a hunch my fireworks company will out compete your fireworks company in the free market. And Spike I just have to ask, would you be saying all this if Kavanaugh was a liberal nominated by President Hillary Clinton? I suppose to be fair I should also ask myself a probing question, would I be saying all I've been saying if Kavanaugh was a scientist turned libertarian judge? I like to think so although it must be admitted I'd do it with considerably less enthusiasm. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Oct 4 23:58:27 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 18:58:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D125FDB-4AB2-41AC-B29D-B1AF1FE3E581@gmail.com> I?m not Natasha of course, but as a woman who has experienced sexual assault, I can firmly say that you do not necessarily remember every detail of what happened, such as the date or time. I remember mine only by accident, as it was so late on Thursday night that it was actually Friday the thirteenth, somewhat around the ?witching hour?, or about 3:00 or so. It was my last year of high school (2012-2013), I was finally 18, so it was at least October. However my dad threatened to kill me so I moved into a women?s shelter for three months. But I just double-checked and there were no Friday the 13ths during the period where this happened. So does that mean I wasn?t assaulted just because I can?t remember the date? Or the exact group of people I was with before? Or the exact words I said to him? I do however remember getting 100% on my exam (that I was 90 minutes late for) the next morning, and calling my friend to buy me plan B. Highest score in 3 years for my school. The guy who cheated off me got 93. I don?t remember his name, but he was nice and needed a diploma so he could get a good spot in something-or-other to support his girlfriend and baby. But if your friend is always right, well, then you should trust her. I don?t know. I didn?t watch the testament of either one of them because I?ve tried to stop watching the news. Too stressful for me. I have serious concerns about the #metoo movement, I feel like it?s beginning to become (or has become) a panic or hysteria almost, but it?s social suicide to mention that among both my family and my friend group. I wasn?t alive then, but it reminds me of news clips I have watched and read about the Satanic Panic in the 80s. TBH I wish I could associate with people who were more open minded. ?Lefty? culture, at least in the 20-30 y/o range has become intolerably toxic and in a way shockingly anti-intellectual. -SR Ballard > On Oct 4, 2018, at 6:06 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > > Natasha writes: > >Relevant to H+ is legislation on human rights for enhancing, FDA rules, etc. I agree with this. But I do not enjoy >reading posts that dis others based on assumption. Many right wingers support science and H+ ideas. > Dear Natasha, > I hold it axiomatic that women are more intuitive than men. Where men have evolved to be able to use physical strength -- force and violence -- to achieve their aims, women are compelled to employ "feminine wiles", a combination of intuition and smarts. (If someone wants to take issue with this generalization, have at it.) > Then too, it seems reasonable to presume that women should be better able than men to understand female behavior because they ***ARE*** women. Men get to see women as they present themselves to the world, whereas women are privy to all of womankind's most closely guarded "secrets". > > So what I conclude is that women are (1) more intuitive and (2) have the advantage of knowing about women from "the inside". > Okay. So now Natasha, I'm almost ready to pose the question I've been leading up to. Normally, I would not prejudice your answer by first citing another answer from another woman, but as back-and-forth is limited here, I will make an exception in this case. I know a woman who is astonishingly intuitive, an absolutely incredible "reader" of people. (She is Egyptian, an entrepreneur, living in Cairo, a native Arabic speaker, but educated in British private schools.) When I mentioned to her, in passing, that my wife and I were watching the SCOTUS confirmation spectacle, she stated, unasked, that the woman -- Ms Ford -- was lying. (Up to then, having only my dull male intuition to go on, I admit I was swayed by Ms Ford's emotional presentation.) > I was somewhat startled at her instantaneous certainty, but knowing her unerring -- as in never wrong -- talent for reading people, I asked her why. Here is her unedited, instant messaging reply: > "Too many reasons why I knew she was lying. And although I trust my instincts about people because I was literally never wrong, I usually hold back my judgement & monitor closely the patterns & behaviors. First you NEVER forget vivid details about your worst humiliation episodes in your life. And she forgot EVERYTHING, time, place, witnesses but only remembered the ?incident? in exact same details we have all watched in the 80s & 90s movies. Then she didn?t want to appear publicly but she contacted the WSJ [sic Washington Post] 4 times in a week. > The best part is her precise ?feelings? while narrating her speech. Feelings/passion definitely make you lose control. She was passionate & in control. Against human nature. > While he lost control & raged at the Dems at the end of the testimony. You can?t control hurt or anger when you?re deeply wounded. Which again is the total opposite of her situation although it should have been if she were not lying. > Last part is pure sociopolitical, too many studies I have contributed to & discussed about diverting the political narrative to employ emotions (feelings) to drive politics > > ******************************************** > > Now add to this Feinstein's almost-unnoticed comment re Ms Ford's accusation: > > "I can't say everything is truthful, I don't know..." > > ...and we have two woman questioning Ms Ford's truthfulness. > > So, Natasha, would you care to offer your take on this, as a woman, with what I axiomatically consider to be a woman's superior intuition and personal experience? > > Best, Jeff Davis > > "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." > Ray Charles > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 5 00:09:48 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 19:09:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] chess olympics In-Reply-To: <009401d45c16$26a2b3e0$73e81ba0$@rainier66.com> References: <009401d45c16$26a2b3e0$73e81ba0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <681EA66F-5363-4EE9-A1E6-823D0E1DF609@gmail.com> > Funny thing: here we are on the verge of an international gold medal, not a word about it anywhere in the popular press. > > spike Because most people have no interest in Chess whatsoever. That would be my guess. Synchronized swimming is an Olympic sport too, yeah? I?ve never heard who won that. But maybe because it?s not us. Did you know in 2016 US won gold for: 10m air rifle, time trial road cycling, 78 kg class in Judo, women?s eight rowing? I mention these specifically because I didn?t even know these were IN the Olympics. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 5 00:16:49 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:16:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> <007901d45c28$d1829430$7487bc90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005601d45c40$b60f10d0$222d3270$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:29 PM > wrote: > we have given away the presumption of innocence >?Yes, and good riddance too for everything except a criminal trial!...the burden of proof is on Kavanaugh? The problem with that notion is that we all now have virtual accusations, all of us, women included. If we put the burden of proof on the accused, we have just doomed the supreme court to an untimely end, for no one, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, can prove she didn?t rape somebody when she was a teen. >?And Spike I just have to ask, would you be saying all this if Kavanaugh was a liberal?John K Clark In the current weird situation, I have little interest in traditional left vs right. If you look at that epic 2016 US election season, neither of the mainstream party candidates were clearly left or right. Think about that for a minute. In my mind, the critical questions before us now are how we are going to handle 4th amendment questions. This also doesn?t break along traditional left vs right in the USA. Currently this cultural civil war is over things that the Supreme Court is quite unlikely to touch: gun laws and abortion laws. In the middle of all the noise, we have surprisingly little discussion on how the 4th amendment protects email. So think about it: the US government may not open our letters. It may look at who we address them to, and who it is from, and perhaps how thick is the envelope. This is metadata. So the US government has claimed the right to collect metadata, which I agree fits with the 4th amendment. But now? Now we have a new wrinkle. This FISA court allows the federal government to read someone?s email if it gets a warrant. But now we can see a huge danger: that the authority could be abused for political purposes. A warrant could be issued based on phony evidence motivated by political considerations. A warrant could be issued on person Alpha based on evidence against person Beta because persons Alpha and Beta are communicating with each other. Person Beta is a politician, so a warrant against Beta would appear to be politically motivated, but getting a warrant against Alpha is a virtual warrant against Beta. This is a critical question for our times. Email is unlike paper mail: often email contains communications from both parties, whereas paper mail does not. So a warrant against Beta is an indirect way of spying on Alpha. This may have happened already. Where we are now is deciding what we are going to do about it. If we do nothing, then it is a green light for the current power holders to do likewise. I can think of some really good reasons why this is a really bad idea. This is the question for our times. It isn?t guns, it isn?t abortion, those are distractions from the critical question of what powers we going to give government for reading email and how we prevent that from being abused for political purposes. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 5 00:41:12 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 17:41:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <005601d45c40$b60f10d0$222d3270$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> <007901d45c28$d1829430$7487bc90$@rainier66.com> <005601d45c40$b60f10d0$222d3270$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008101d45c44$1dfb7fa0$59f27ee0$@rainier66.com> Did this one ever come thru? I got a bounce notice. I have discovered a scheme that would allow communication in such a way that it would obscure metadata. We have heard one of our own data experts argue that traditional steganography can be detected. The message cannot be deciphered, but it can be shown that a particular message has steganographic messages in there. I have an idea which might be an end-run around a very questionable use of the 4th amendment by the FISA court. Before I go on however, I want to verify my previous post went thru. spike From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Thursday, October 4, 2018 5:17 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] Perjury From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Perjury On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 5:29 PM > wrote: > we have given away the presumption of innocence >?Yes, and good riddance too for everything except a criminal trial!...the burden of proof is on Kavanaugh? The problem with that notion is that we all now have virtual accusations, all of us, women included. If we put the burden of proof on the accused, we have just doomed the supreme court to an untimely end, for no one, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg, can prove she didn?t rape somebody when she was a teen. >?And Spike I just have to ask, would you be saying all this if Kavanaugh was a liberal?John K Clark In the current weird situation, I have little interest in traditional left vs right. If you look at that epic 2016 US election season, neither of the mainstream party candidates were clearly left or right. Think about that for a minute. In my mind, the critical questions before us now are how we are going to handle 4th amendment questions. This also doesn?t break along traditional left vs right in the USA. Currently this cultural civil war is over things that the Supreme Court is quite unlikely to touch: gun laws and abortion laws. In the middle of all the noise, we have surprisingly little discussion on how the 4th amendment protects email. So think about it: the US government may not open our letters. It may look at who we address them to, and who it is from, and perhaps how thick is the envelope. This is metadata. So the US government has claimed the right to collect metadata, which I agree fits with the 4th amendment. But now? Now we have a new wrinkle. This FISA court allows the federal government to read someone?s email if it gets a warrant. But now we can see a huge danger: that the authority could be abused for political purposes. A warrant could be issued based on phony evidence motivated by political considerations. A warrant could be issued on person Alpha based on evidence against person Beta because persons Alpha and Beta are communicating with each other. Person Beta is a politician, so a warrant against Beta would appear to be politically motivated, but getting a warrant against Alpha is a virtual warrant against Beta. This is a critical question for our times. Email is unlike paper mail: often email contains communications from both parties, whereas paper mail does not. So a warrant against Beta is an indirect way of spying on Alpha. This may have happened already. Where we are now is deciding what we are going to do about it. If we do nothing, then it is a green light for the current power holders to do likewise. I can think of some really good reasons why this is a really bad idea. This is the question for our times. It isn?t guns, it isn?t abortion, those are distractions from the critical question of what powers we going to give government for reading email and how we prevent that from being abused for political purposes. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Oct 5 01:26:43 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 21:26:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Perjury In-Reply-To: <005601d45c40$b60f10d0$222d3270$@rainier66.com> References: <006e01d45b4e$d624ce20$826e6a60$@rainier66.com> <012601d45b9d$31ce1710$956a4530$@rainier66.com> <007901d45c28$d1829430$7487bc90$@rainier66.com> <005601d45c40$b60f10d0$222d3270$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 4, 2018, 20:20 wrote: > This may have happened already. > I appreciate the optimism, but there's no way that 'may' isn't actually a 'definitely'. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 05:20:04 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 22:20:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:16 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > Long post. TL;DR: the constituents of this list must take an active stance in avoiding bullshit posts and threads. It is ultimately the responsibility of the administrators of any given forum, to prune away objectionable behavior and keep the community running smoothly. What little I have tried, seems to have had little effect. > 3) Whenever politics seep into a non-political thread, the next poster should immediately fork the thread into a [POLITICS] version and version that is not tainted. (I will start doing this immediately) > > 4) Absolute refusal to discuss politic in threads that are not affixed with [POLITICS]. Even though this is drastic, and should not be forever, it is necessary medicine for this cancer. What to do with members who refuse to comply? Because that has been the core of the problem: people inject politics and act as if their politics is still on the original topic, when most of us do not agree. > Do you have a reason to justify scaring geniuses away from a list that has the potential to solve grave world problems, many of which you complain about? I have noticed that many political partisans will sacrifice any and every thing, not caring of or considering that there could be long term damage, for the potential of short term gain. > Where is Anders? Damien? Stefano? Samantha? Eugen? Jeff? Stathis? Adrian? Where is Max? Where is the list? I am honored to be on that list. > A runner-up to said bullshit is refusing to find middle ground and opposing anything and everything an ideological 'enemy' (such as Trump) says, even if it's something you agree with at your core. That fallacy used to be known as reductio ad hitlerium. It still applies, though the current incarnation is reductio ad trumpium. Politics is like that. Even the most evil person can still do some good, if perhaps only by accident. (Even Hitler was capable of befriending dogs.) Likewise, even the purest saint will slip up and do evil now and then - the difference being, the saint will at least recognize the evil (or can recognize it, once it has been clearly pointed out) and try to make up for it if practical. I am reminded of that Amazon resume filter that started biasing against women, for what turned out to be be of the same reasons the bias got established in human resume reviewers: lack of familiarity with resumes from women, and a bias toward rejecting anything significantly different from the trained (primarily male) previously accepted set because the point of the system was to identify the resumes most similar to the previously accepted ones. Once that bias is known, it can be deliberately addressed, e.g. by finding out the elements in acceptable resumes from women that the system flags and removing those flags (which process applies whether the reviewer is AI or human, even if the details of the process differ). From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 05:43:44 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:43:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <11F7DB41-0388-45BD-8F33-763E09258D7A@gmail.com> I would say I?m introverted, open, and neurotic, though my conscientiousness and agreeableness, I?m not so sure. If they?re the same as they used to be, the puzzles range from humorous to annoying. A famous example of the series would be: ?In the middle of winter, the police find a man who has been stabbed to death, and they can?t find a murder weapon. How did the man die?? Hint 1: ?There are no tracks leading away from the body in the snow.? Hint 2: ?There is only one set of footprints leading to the body, they match the man?s shoes.? Hint 3: ?The man is standing near the mouth of a cave.? Answer: ?The man was impaled by a falling icicle, which melted after his death.? I paraphrase, but you understand my point. Usually sort of snarky, ?gotcha? answers. Can be fun, can be annoying. Usually gives you the same feeling as hearing a really bad pun. > On Oct 11, 2018, at 8:50 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Will you give me a quick review of the books? > > It would seem that we are much alike - I am very introverted (but never shy), agreeable, conscientious, very open to my experiences. Low N > > bill w > >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> ?The Even Better Fiendish & Fun Lateral Thinking Puzzle Book? >> >> I?m very familiar with the series, however, my aunt, who always bought these and tortured/entertained me with them passed away before this one in particular was published. >> >> SR Ballard >> >>> On Oct 10, 2018, at 5:26 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> Is anyone familiar with this book? It's a series too. >>> >>> >>> >>> Malky McEwan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Fri Oct 12 05:45:51 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:45:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Soyuz launch abort In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/american-russian-alive-after-soyuz-rocket-headed-to-space-station-fails-on-launch/2018/10/11/b9f3ae88-cd36-11e8-920f-dd52e1ae4570_story.html I wonder if they?ll have to call Mr. Musk? > On Oct 11, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-statement-on-soyuz-ms-10-launch-abort/ > > Still collating.... > > 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 Fri Oct 12 05:50:58 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:50:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Four personality types? In-Reply-To: References: <8EAEBB19-85B6-4E28-9F62-197C52BFDCE0@gmail.com> Message-ID: > > You can sort any collection of things into a number of arbitrary baskets. Whether or not that categorization is useful is another question. > > -Dave The only real conclusion they seem to have drawn, if the article is reliable in reporting the findings, is that personality changes over time. I imagine due to life experiences. Which doesn?t seem very actionable to me because I feel like that was already established. From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 05:53:38 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 00:53:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [Exl] MIT - Self-healing material can build itself from carbon in the air In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <517D0CE3-6457-41AC-BE7F-4567D1C30B59@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 11, 2018, at 3:28 PM, Edward Haigh wrote: > > Thought this might be of interest to a few of you > > http://news.mit.edu/2018/self-healing-material-carbon-air-1011 A self-patching road? Yes please. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 06:01:43 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 23:01:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: <11F7DB41-0388-45BD-8F33-763E09258D7A@gmail.com> References: <11F7DB41-0388-45BD-8F33-763E09258D7A@gmail.com> Message-ID: Other answers consistent with the hints include: * a thrown sword, perhaps on a tether * the murderer was clinging to the cave's ceiling, or perhaps standing above the entrance * it was suicide, and the blade was hurled some distance away * the murderer wore snowshoes so as to give very light footprints, and what little snowfall has occurred since obliterated those but not the victim's footprints * there was no snow inside the cave, just solid rock that leaves no footprints; the murderer entered and exited the cave somewhere else * if "no footprints" only means feet, the stabbing was from sharpened antlers or claws and the police ignored the hoofprints/pawprints On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > I would say I?m introverted, open, and neurotic, though my conscientiousness and agreeableness, I?m not so sure. > > If they?re the same as they used to be, the puzzles range from humorous to annoying. A famous example of the series would be: > > ?In the middle of winter, the police find a man who has been stabbed to death, and they can?t find a murder weapon. How did the man die?? > > Hint 1: ?There are no tracks leading away from the body in the snow.? > > Hint 2: ?There is only one set of footprints leading to the body, they match the man?s shoes.? > > Hint 3: ?The man is standing near the mouth of a cave.? > > Answer: ?The man was impaled by a falling icicle, which melted after his death.? > > I paraphrase, but you understand my point. Usually sort of snarky, ?gotcha? answers. Can be fun, can be annoying. Usually gives you the same feeling as hearing a really bad pun. > > > On Oct 11, 2018, at 8:50 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Will you give me a quick review of the books? > > It would seem that we are much alike - I am very introverted (but never shy), agreeable, conscientious, very open to my experiences. Low N > > bill w > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard wrote: >> >> ?The Even Better Fiendish & Fun Lateral Thinking Puzzle Book? >> >> I?m very familiar with the series, however, my aunt, who always bought these and tortured/entertained me with them passed away before this one in particular was published. >> >> SR Ballard >> >> On Oct 10, 2018, at 5:26 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> >> Is anyone familiar with this book? It's a series too. >> >> >> >> Malky McEwan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 06:08:41 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 23:08:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Are we getting too blase here on the list, about scientific and technological progress? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:34 PM John Grigg wrote: > What advances do you think it will take, to reinvigorate this list and our sense of wonder? As pointed out in another post, a way to turn off the political rants. I find it difficult to motivate myself to post curiosity about the future while dreading that any word could spur yet another wall of text about how Trump is going to unleash nuclear war any day now, so we won't get to enjoy any particular preferred future, so it's no use talking about it. From eh at edwardhaigh.com Fri Oct 12 07:49:33 2018 From: eh at edwardhaigh.com (Edward Haigh) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:49:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: <11F7DB41-0388-45BD-8F33-763E09258D7A@gmail.com> Message-ID: This reminds me of the murder in Dan Browns 'Deception Point' where they used ice pellets as ammo which would melt after shooting someone. I imagine this weapon is fiction, but if not it would be how I'd answer that puzzle. Does anyone know if such improvised firearms exist? Myth Busters showed ice bullets were too brittle to survive being fired, but maybe something which isn't designed to pierce the skin but kill purely from impact could work. A cannon shooting ice balls for instance. - Ed On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 7:17 AM Adrian Tymes wrote: > Other answers consistent with the hints include: > * a thrown sword, perhaps on a tether > * the murderer was clinging to the cave's ceiling, or perhaps standing > above the entrance > * it was suicide, and the blade was hurled some distance away > * the murderer wore snowshoes so as to give very light footprints, and > what little snowfall has occurred since obliterated those but not the > victim's footprints > * there was no snow inside the cave, just solid rock that leaves no > footprints; the murderer entered and exited the cave somewhere else > * if "no footprints" only means feet, the stabbing was from sharpened > antlers or claws and the police ignored the hoofprints/pawprints > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > > > I would say I?m introverted, open, and neurotic, though my > conscientiousness and agreeableness, I?m not so sure. > > > > If they?re the same as they used to be, the puzzles range from humorous > to annoying. A famous example of the series would be: > > > > ?In the middle of winter, the police find a man who has been stabbed to > death, and they can?t find a murder weapon. How did the man die?? > > > > Hint 1: ?There are no tracks leading away from the body in the snow.? > > > > Hint 2: ?There is only one set of footprints leading to the body, they > match the man?s shoes.? > > > > Hint 3: ?The man is standing near the mouth of a cave.? > > > > Answer: ?The man was impaled by a falling icicle, which melted after his > death.? > > > > I paraphrase, but you understand my point. Usually sort of snarky, > ?gotcha? answers. Can be fun, can be annoying. Usually gives you the same > feeling as hearing a really bad pun. > > > > > > On Oct 11, 2018, at 8:50 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > > Will you give me a quick review of the books? > > > > It would seem that we are much alike - I am very introverted (but never > shy), agreeable, conscientious, very open to my experiences. Low N > > > > bill w > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 8:48 PM SR Ballard wrote: > >> > >> ?The Even Better Fiendish & Fun Lateral Thinking Puzzle Book? > >> > >> I?m very familiar with the series, however, my aunt, who always bought > these and tortured/entertained me with them passed away before this one in > particular was published. > >> > >> SR Ballard > >> > >> On Oct 10, 2018, at 5:26 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> > >> Is anyone familiar with this book? It's a series too. > >> > >> > >> > >> Malky McEwan > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 Fri Oct 12 12:58:52 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:58:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Four personality types? In-Reply-To: References: <8EAEBB19-85B6-4E28-9F62-197C52BFDCE0@gmail.com> Message-ID: personality changes over time. I imagine due to life experiences. Which doesn?t seem very actionable to me because I feel like that was already established. Sure - half of it is environment. But no one is going to change from introvert to extrovert, or agreeable to disagreeable, or reverse on any of the Big Five factors. Smaller traits, more environmental to start with, OK, perhaps a major change. bill w On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:03 AM SR Ballard wrote: > > > > > You can sort any collection of things into a number of arbitrary > baskets. Whether or not that categorization is useful is another question. > > > > -Dave > > The only real conclusion they seem to have drawn, if the article is > reliable in reporting the findings, is that personality changes over time. > I imagine due to life experiences. Which doesn?t seem very actionable to me > because I feel like that was already established. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 12 13:20:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:20:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] idea In-Reply-To: <017401d461c5$b6fcf630$24f6e290$@rainier66.com> References: <00c801d461bf$e8ec38f0$bac4aad0$@rainier66.com> <017401d461c5$b6fcf630$24f6e290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I am not a CEO, I am only a rocket scientist. spike Very dry, sir, positively Saharan. Now why can't paying the highest for employees be compatible with a different strategy for the CEO? bill w On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:57 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] idea > > > > > > >>?Sounds like a great place to work. Who steers the ship? Why does she > steer the ship? > > >>?spike > > > > >?Ah, there's the rub. IN today's climate high level management people > are given enormous golden parachutes in addition to giant salaries. This > may be a trend that is hard to modify? > > >? bill w > > > > Ja. Big companies compete with each other for high-level management > talent. If your company took all those millions it pays the CEO and > distributed it to the lower-level workers, your company will soon be run by > an incompetent CEO that no one else would hire, the one that replaced the > previous CEO who left for high wages at your competitor. Your company is > quite unlikely to survive for very long. > > The whole notion fails to take into account that CEOs are not in direct > competition with lower level workers. Lower level workers compete against > each other, CEOs compete against each other, companies compete against each > other. When I worked in engineering at Lockheed, my salary was influenced > by the salaries of similarly skilled rocket scientists at Boeing, not by > what the CEO made. I am not a CEO, I am only a rocket scientist. > > 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 Fri Oct 12 13:42:23 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:42:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Exl] MIT - Self-healing material can build itself from carbon in the air In-Reply-To: <517D0CE3-6457-41AC-BE7F-4567D1C30B59@gmail.com> References: <517D0CE3-6457-41AC-BE7F-4567D1C30B59@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004601d46231$685bc030$39134090$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard http://news.mit.edu/2018/self-healing-material-carbon-air-1011 >?A self-patching road? Yes please. >?SR Ballard No way Jose! Our local governments make their living by promising to fix roads if we pass the latest absurd bond measure. Self-patching roads would destroy local government. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 12 13:45:58 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 06:45:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Are we getting too blase here on the list, about scientific and technological progress? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005701d46231$e8a9aae0$b9fd00a0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] Are we getting too blase here on the list, about scientific and technological progress? On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 4:34 PM John Grigg wrote: > What advances do you think it will take, to reinvigorate this list and our sense of wonder? As pointed out in another post, a way to turn off the political rants. I find it difficult to motivate myself to post curiosity about the future while dreading that any word could spur yet another wall of text about how Trump is going to unleash nuclear war any day now, so we won't get to enjoy any particular preferred future, so it's no use talking about it. _______________________________________________ Ja. I vow to do my part: I will refuse to respond to political rants, even indirectly. Practical approach: I will refuse to respond to any post which names or references any particular public figure (other than science or tech weenies.) The rest of them I don't care about. Note that my perennial rant about the risk introduced by voting machines would still be fair game, because those don't involve a particular party or public figure. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 12 14:06:50 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:06:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] idea In-Reply-To: References: <00c801d461bf$e8ec38f0$bac4aad0$@rainier66.com> <017401d461c5$b6fcf630$24f6e290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006901d46234$d27b3ba0$7771b2e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 6:20 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] idea I am not a CEO, I am only a rocket scientist. spike Very dry, sir, positively Saharan. Now why can't paying the highest for employees be compatible with a different strategy for the CEO? bill w You can do that BillW, but my point is that competent leadership is still going to cost skerjillions of bucks. Top executive talent will go where the pay is best. Maximizing profits (the company?s and their own) is how they got that skillset to start with. Paying higher than standard has been done. Henry Ford did it successfully. He had a new-ish technology in a new industry, and paid his men way higher than they could make elsewhere. That worked for a while. I live in an area where that strategy generally isn?t followed: they pay what the labor costs, yet they still get good people. Reason: good people will take those jobs and do the hell out of them. We hear all the flapping about immigration, but a quieter aspect of that whole question isn?t talked about so much: highly skilled and highly educated people with money can generally come to the states and get their immigration legally. They do. My own area has really filled up with smart ambitious Chinese and Indian people, here on H1B and other temporary immigration arrangements. They take up jobs paying way below what many would consider below a practical living salary. They cram into a tiny apartment with nothing in it besides beds, and live the Silicon Valley life. Shrugs. With that eager and willing labor pool available, paying above the supply-set standard might make more problems than it solves. On the other hand? Companies can find ways, a good CEO and find ways, to make their company appealing. Steve Jobs was a master at this. By all accounts he was a total asshole, but somehow managed to surround himself with people who shared his vision. So these innovative outfits such as Tesla and Apple can pay starvation wages and still get people to cram the PR department with excellent resumes, if? if they can provide interesting work. I get it: if I were young now, I would work for peanuts, provided the work is interesting. I would choose that over a high-paying boring job. Tesla is training skerjillions of Indians and Chinese how to make good electric cars. Apple is training them to make good computers and write good software. There is no reason to pay them enough to rent an actual apartment, ja? In the long run, we all win. spike On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:57 PM > wrote: From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] idea >>?Sounds like a great place to work. Who steers the ship? Why does she steer the ship? >>?spike >?Ah, there's the rub. IN today's climate high level management people are given enormous golden parachutes in addition to giant salaries. This may be a trend that is hard to modify? >? bill w Ja. Big companies compete with each other for high-level management talent. If your company took all those millions it pays the CEO and distributed it to the lower-level workers, your company will soon be run by an incompetent CEO that no one else would hire, the one that replaced the previous CEO who left for high wages at your competitor. Your company is quite unlikely to survive for very long. The whole notion fails to take into account that CEOs are not in direct competition with lower level workers. Lower level workers compete against each other, CEOs compete against each other, companies compete against each other. When I worked in engineering at Lockheed, my salary was influenced by the salaries of similarly skilled rocket scientists at Boeing, not by what the CEO made. I am not a CEO, I am only a rocket scientist. 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 Oct 12 16:11:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:11:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] books Message-ID: Those of you who may have enjoyed Yuval Hoah Harari's previous books, Sapiens - dealing with the past, and Homo Deus - dealing with the future, might want to know about his latest: 21 Lessons for the 21st Century - dealing with the present. As usual, very clear prose and interesting ideas. Hard to put down for a nonfiction book. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 16:31:45 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 11:31:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] idea In-Reply-To: <006901d46234$d27b3ba0$7771b2e0$@rainier66.com> References: <00c801d461bf$e8ec38f0$bac4aad0$@rainier66.com> <017401d461c5$b6fcf630$24f6e290$@rainier66.com> <006901d46234$d27b3ba0$7771b2e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I get it: if I were young now, I would work for peanuts spike I did work for peanuts - $5000 a year but with a faculty apt. that cost me $60 a month. I had a chance to go to a big time school, publish or perish, etc.,and also a local TV show as a permanent guest (and who knows what from there), and decided I just wanted to teach students, and so I turned down possible fame and fortune and billions of people treating me with adulation and offers of sex and free jet rides, and all the rest. I was a conservative then and a Baptist. If you can believe that. I am thrilled that I did what I did bill w On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:09 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Friday, October 12, 2018 6:20 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] idea > > > > I am not a CEO, I am only a rocket scientist. > > spike > > Very dry, sir, positively Saharan. > > Now why can't paying the highest for employees be compatible with a > different strategy for the CEO? bill w > > > > You can do that BillW, but my point is that competent leadership is still > going to cost skerjillions of bucks. Top executive talent will go where > the pay is best. Maximizing profits (the company?s and their own) is how > they got that skillset to start with. > > Paying higher than standard has been done. Henry Ford did it > successfully. He had a new-ish technology in a new industry, and paid his > men way higher than they could make elsewhere. That worked for a while. > > I live in an area where that strategy generally isn?t followed: they pay > what the labor costs, yet they still get good people. Reason: good people > will take those jobs and do the hell out of them. > > We hear all the flapping about immigration, but a quieter aspect of that > whole question isn?t talked about so much: highly skilled and highly > educated people with money can generally come to the states and get their > immigration legally. They do. My own area has really filled up with smart > ambitious Chinese and Indian people, here on H1B and other temporary > immigration arrangements. They take up jobs paying way below what many > would consider below a practical living salary. They cram into a tiny > apartment with nothing in it besides beds, and live the Silicon Valley > life. Shrugs. > > With that eager and willing labor pool available, paying above the > supply-set standard might make more problems than it solves. > > On the other hand? > > Companies can find ways, a good CEO and find ways, to make their company > appealing. Steve Jobs was a master at this. By all accounts he was a > total asshole, but somehow managed to surround himself with people who > shared his vision. So these innovative outfits such as Tesla and Apple can > pay starvation wages and still get people to cram the PR department with > excellent resumes, if? if they can provide interesting work. > > I get it: if I were young now, I would work for peanuts, provided the work > is interesting. I would choose that over a high-paying boring job. > > Tesla is training skerjillions of Indians and Chinese how to make good > electric cars. Apple is training them to make good computers and write > good software. There is no reason to pay them enough to rent an actual > apartment, ja? In the long run, we all win. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:57 PM wrote: > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] idea > > > > > > >>?Sounds like a great place to work. Who steers the ship? Why does she > steer the ship? > > >>?spike > > > > >?Ah, there's the rub. IN today's climate high level management people > are given enormous golden parachutes in addition to giant salaries. This > may be a trend that is hard to modify? > > >? bill w > > > > Ja. Big companies compete with each other for high-level management > talent. If your company took all those millions it pays the CEO and > distributed it to the lower-level workers, your company will soon be run by > an incompetent CEO that no one else would hire, the one that replaced the > previous CEO who left for high wages at your competitor. Your company is > quite unlikely to survive for very long. > > The whole notion fails to take into account that CEOs are not in direct > competition with lower level workers. Lower level workers compete against > each other, CEOs compete against each other, companies compete against each > other. When I worked in engineering at Lockheed, my salary was influenced > by the salaries of similarly skilled rocket scientists at Boeing, not by > what the CEO made. I am not a CEO, I am only a rocket scientist. > > 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 avant at sollegro.com Fri Oct 12 17:01:07 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:01:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Are we getting too blase here on the list, about scientific and technological progress? Message-ID: <6d55e35e67460d377b8b71d543790a32.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> > To me, it's not things like high tech cars or high tech anything.? It's > high tech people. Thousands of studies are showing the genetic bases of > human traits like kindness and happiness. Thus these things are > programmable/heritable, or will be, with CRISPR or other new techniques. > So the question that I asked when I first joined this list, and is still > unanswered is:? just what do we want future people to be like; how will > they interact with unprogrammed people; and how do we achieve those > goals? I am but one voice among many but since you asked, I hope future people will be EVERY possible way. Homogeneity whether it be genetic, cultural, or economic is brittle in the long run and is ultimately a recipe for extinction. I want diversity and redundancy. Eugenics failed disastrously because its premises were flawed. There can be no master race or superior genetics in the long term. There is only fitness. And fitness is contingent upon an ever-changing environment, always relative to ones competition, and is often subjective in the eyes of potential mates during sexual selection. As an alternative to eugenics, I would propose the concept of agoragenics. That is a fancy Greek way of saying the "genetics of the marketplace". What genes and associated traits should someone have? The most useful and valuable that they can afford. There is no more need to centrally plan the future evolution of humanity than there is to centrally plan the economy. In fact, any attempt to do so is likely to meet with disaster as Nazism did. Instead, we should allow maximal morphological and functional freedom by whatever means possible and let supply, demand, and healthy competition sort out the winners from the losers. And if that means that humanity evolves into numerous different species, then so much the better. Why should people adapted to outer space, the deep sea, or another planet be expected to resemble baseline humans? Let the stars be colonized by post-human machines, cyborgs, exotic biological humanoids and whatever other forms the children of men can dream up for themselves. The attempt must be made. To try to stay as we are in a changing universe is certain doom. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 18:34:29 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:34:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:17 PM Will Steinberg wrote: *>The list will be DESTROYED by bullshit*. * > Well it certainly seems to be heading in that direction. *>1) Dedicated posting of a new thread relating to transhumanism every day > or every few days, with [H+] at the beginning of the subject line. Then > people can know what threads to stay away from.* > *2) Putting [POLITICS] at the beginning of the subject line of political > threads. Again, a way to stay away from toxic threads.* > So a subject that has anything to do with economics or immortality, or the future geology or geography of the Earth or the engineering of the galaxy or the Fermi Paradox must contain both a [+H] and a [POLITICS] tag. And the point of this entire Kabuki dance is to ensure that the Extropian list is a safe place for snowflake libertarians where they can be protected from inadvertently reading something that might challenge their beliefs, in particular their belief in Donald Trump. And don't tell me this isn't about Trump, I was on the list when Bill Clinton was presadent and although we argued vigorously and sometimes impolitely about which of his policies was most wrong nobody suggested such discussions were not relevant to the Extropian list or said it was wrong to trash the resident of the White House. *>Do you think there will be positive results from this eventually? * > I don't know. Do you think there will ever be any positive results from anything anybody says on this list on ANY topic? > > Seriously, is there *ANYTHING* that will make you stop? > Yes, prove to me that current politics will not have a huge effect on the long term structure of the galaxy and possibly the entire universe. Prove to me that just one ignorant fool with contempt for factual reality could not destroy human civilization in the next 20 minutes. > *And, to Spike: what is the maximum amount of control you would be > comfortable exerting over the list, and have you considered effecting said > control?* So you want Spike to become the list censor to make sure everybody is comfortable and nobody reading the list will ever be offended by anything. I say toughen up, nobody ever died from being offended. > *Where are the Jupiter Brains? The cryogenics? The nanotech? The AI? * > Those topics should be explored and I've sent quite a few posts about them myself, I've certainly written more about them than you have, but never forget every one of those ideas could be rendered entirely moot before lunchtime by a reality TV show host who doesn't believe in objective facts and hasn't read a book in half a century, not even the one he claims to have written. > > *Even Searle's fucking Chinese Room, for chrissakes.* > Good God! Do you really think that is more relevant to thans-humanism than current politics? Searle's Chinese Room may be almost as stupid as Donald Trump but at least it can't kill us all before the toadies on Fox And Friends can finish their show. *>Note that being against our insane president is NOT bullshit, * I'm glad to hear you say that. But, although I'm not certain what constitutes "void-pissing", you seem to contradict yourself in your very next breath: *"but constant petulant void-pissing with no results (except to drive away our best and brightest) is SEVERE bullshit."* *> Where is Anders? Damien? Stefano? Samantha? Eugen? Jeff? Stathis? > Adrian? Where is Max? * > I doubt they left because they thought the day to day mental health of the Commander In Chief of the armed forces of the USA had no effect on the long term fulfilment of Extropian ideas, but if they did then they were not our best and brightest. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 18:50:47 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:50:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problem as I see it,John, is that you and nobody else can say anything new about the situation, and nothing new is being said about what to do about it. You are crying wolf when everyone can see the wolf. I can say something new, though: in my reading of a new psych book I noticed that while this can be the result of brain damage, it also can occur naturally: the person simply cannot be embarrassed. It is a feeling that is impossible. It is not a choice. I think that explains a lot about Trump, but we all could have done without knowing it from me, as it is evident to everyone. Thus, like all you say and all everyone says, this post is redundant, and too much redundancy is irritating, right gang? bill w On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:37 PM John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:17 PM Will Steinberg > wrote: > > *>The list will be DESTROYED by bullshit*. * >> > > Well it certainly seems to be heading in that direction. > > *>1) Dedicated posting of a new thread relating to transhumanism every day >> or every few days, with [H+] at the beginning of the subject line. Then >> people can know what threads to stay away from.* >> *2) Putting [POLITICS] at the beginning of the subject line of political >> threads. Again, a way to stay away from toxic threads.* >> > > So a subject that has anything to do with economics or immortality, or the > future geology or geography of the Earth or the engineering of the galaxy > or the Fermi Paradox must contain both a [+H] and a [POLITICS] tag. And the > point of this entire Kabuki dance is to ensure that the Extropian list is > a safe place for snowflake libertarians where they can be protected from > inadvertently reading something that might challenge their beliefs, in > particular their belief in Donald Trump. And don't tell me this isn't about > Trump, I was on the list when Bill Clinton was presadent and although we > argued vigorously and sometimes impolitely about which of his policies was > most wrong nobody suggested such discussions were not relevant to the > Extropian list or said it was wrong to trash the resident of the White > House. > > *>Do you think there will be positive results from this eventually? * >> > > I don't know. Do you think there will ever be any positive results from > anything anybody says on this list on ANY topic? > > >> > Seriously, is there *ANYTHING* that will make you stop? >> > > Yes, prove to me that current politics will not have a huge effect on the > long term structure of the galaxy and possibly the entire universe. Prove > to me that just one ignorant fool with contempt for factual reality could > not destroy human civilization in the next 20 minutes. > > > *And, to Spike: what is the maximum amount of control you would be >> comfortable exerting over the list, and have you considered effecting said >> control?* > > > So you want Spike to become the list censor to make sure everybody is > comfortable and nobody reading the list will ever be offended by anything. > I say toughen up, nobody ever died from being offended. > > > *Where are the Jupiter Brains? The cryogenics? The nanotech? The >> AI? * >> > > Those topics should be explored and I've sent quite a few posts about them > myself, I've certainly written more about them than you have, but never > forget every one of those ideas could be rendered entirely moot before > lunchtime by a reality TV show host who doesn't believe in objective facts > and hasn't read a book in half a century, not even the one he claims to > have written. > > >> > *Even Searle's fucking Chinese Room, for chrissakes.* >> > > Good God! Do you really think that is more relevant to thans-humanism than > current politics? Searle's Chinese Room may be almost as stupid as Donald > Trump but at least it can't kill us all before the toadies on Fox And > Friends can finish their show. > > *>Note that being against our insane president is NOT bullshit, * > > > I'm glad to hear you say that. But, although I'm not certain what > constitutes "void-pissing", you seem to contradict yourself in your very > next breath: > > *"but constant petulant void-pissing with no results (except to drive away > our best and brightest) is SEVERE bullshit."* > > *> Where is Anders? Damien? Stefano? Samantha? Eugen? Jeff? >> Stathis? Adrian? Where is Max? * >> > > I doubt they left because they thought the day to day mental health of the > Commander In Chief of the armed forces of the USA had no effect on the long > term fulfilment of Extropian ideas, but if they did then they were not our > best and brightest. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 20:16:06 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:16:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:54 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > You are crying wolf when everyone can see the wolf. > If everyone can see the wolf then please explain to me why Donald Trump is clearly the most popular American presadent among Extropians since I joined the list in 1993 even though he is by FAR the most anti-libertarian one. And explain why so many go into such a rage whenever I dare to say anything bad about him. Nobody gets angry with something they just think is redundant or dull because they could just ignore it. And you didn't bother to write a reply because you thought what I said was unimportant and told you nothing you didn't already know, instead there must have been something about it that made you mad. I did not see that sort of behavior during the Clinton or Bush or Obama era but it's there plain as day for the Trump era, and that is not consistent with the everyone can see the wolf theory. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 21:18:04 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:18:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 3:19 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:54 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > You are crying wolf when everyone can see the wolf. >> > > If everyone can see the wolf then please explain to me why Donald Trump is > clearly the most popular American presadent among Extropians since I joined > the list in 1993 even though he is by FAR the most anti-libertarian one. > If there are Trump supporters on this list I have not been able to spot them. Who will come forward and admit it? > And explain why so many go into such a rage whenever I dare to say > anything bad about him. Nobody gets angry with something they just think is > redundant or dull because they could just ignore it. And you didn't bother > to write a reply because you thought what I said was unimportant and told > you nothing you didn't already know, instead there must have been something > about it that made you mad. > I am not at all mad - not at anyone. I read your posts and wonder why > you think it's necessary to tell us what we already know. If posters have > commented on the content of your posts, contradicting something you said > that was unfavorable about Trump, I have missed them somehow. Yes, I do > think the main problem is redundancy, which can cause frustration but not > anger. Do you think we are unaware of what is going on and who is > responsible? Do you think we absolutely *need* your posts about Trump? > I don't think we do, and I think the complainers feel the same way. Maybe > I am wrong. > Even if I were angry, which I am not. I am still your friend. bill w > I did not see that sort of behavior during the Clinton or Bush or Obama > era but it's there plain as day for the Trump era, and that is not > consistent with the everyone can see the wolf theory. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 21:24:35 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:24:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 1:19 PM John Clark wrote: > Donald Trump is clearly the most popular American presadent among Extropians since I joined the list in 1993 Enough is enough. Spike, please ban this lying character assassin NOW. I have had it with his insults against the moral fiber of this list. Do not let him resubscribe until he can refrain from said collateral damage. (If this means not letting him resubscribe until Trump is out of office, so be it.) It is posts like his right there, which are causing people to unsubscribe. From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 21:33:00 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 14:33:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Exl] MIT - Self-healing material can build itself from carbon in the air In-Reply-To: <004601d46231$685bc030$39134090$@rainier66.com> References: <517D0CE3-6457-41AC-BE7F-4567D1C30B59@gmail.com> <004601d46231$685bc030$39134090$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 6:44 AM wrote: > Our local governments make their living by promising to fix roads if we pass the latest absurd bond measure. Self-patching roads would destroy local government. Some might view that as a good thing. ;) That said, what happens if we set up self-patching roads which need "maintenance" - gardening, much cheaper than now - yet local governments continue to propose the same size bond measures? Increasing income doesn't always mean increasing revenue; lowering costs while delivering the same quality of service works too. From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 12 23:16:51 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:16:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017d01d46281$a8ed1540$fac73fc0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 2:54 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > You are crying wolf when everyone can see the wolf. >? is clearly the most popular American presadent among Extropians since I joined the list in 1993 even though he is by FAR the most anti-libertarian one?John K Clark Please my friends, have mercy upon me. I have been moderating the list for about the last 16 years. Most of the time it has been very easy indeed: I was brought in to help quench a ferocious flame war, which finally burned out. Since then and up until about 2016, only minor grass fires, nothing difficult. I have gotten more complaints, mostly offlist and a few on list, about these political threads just in the past year more than the other 15 yrs combined. I request in sincere earnest an abrupt end to it. At this point, if one wishes to discuss the current occupant of the White House, whose name escapes me at the moment, do take it to another forum. We are getting excessive fatigue on that topic. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 23:26:23 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:26:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:30 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> Donald Trump is clearly the most popular American presadent among >> Extropians since I joined the list in 1993 > > > > Spike, please ban this lying character assassin NOW. If I'm lying then name a president since 1993 that Extropians liked more than Donald Trump and explain why the sort of rage you're expressing right now had never occurred until 2 years ago. And do it NOW. > *I have had it* Apparently so, but that's the difference between you and me, I haven't had it. Since the day I first got on the Internet with a dial up modem I have never EVER called for anyone to be banned, not from this list and not from any of the many others I have been on over the years. But then I am not a delicate snowflake that needs protection from ideas that don't agree with mine. But you are and you do. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 12 23:37:35 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:37:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: <017d01d46281$a8ed1540$fac73fc0$@rainier66.com> References: <017d01d46281$a8ed1540$fac73fc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 7:20 PM wrote: > > I have gotten more complaints, mostly offlist and a few on list, about > these political threads just in the past year more than the other 15 yrs > combined. Spike that does not surprise me one bit. Something in the last couple of years must have changed radically from the previous 13 for that phenomenon to occur. And that change grieves me and also frightens me. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 12 23:42:58 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 16:42:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <019701d46285$4ec82920$ec587b60$@rainier66.com> John, please just let it go man. Please just let it go. You have been the source of dozens of complaints John. Let it go please. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 4:26 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:30 PM Adrian Tymes > wrote: >> Donald Trump is clearly the most popular American presadent among Extropians since I joined the list in 1993 > Spike, please ban this lying character assassin NOW. If I'm lying then name a president since 1993 that Extropians liked more than Donald Trump and explain why the sort of rage you're expressing right now had never occurred until 2 years ago. And do it NOW. > I have had it Apparently so, but that's the difference between you and me, I haven't had it. Since the day I first got on the Internet with a dial up modem I have never EVER called for anyone to be banned, not from this list and not from any of the many others I have been on over the years. But then I am not a delicate snowflake that needs protection from ideas that don't agree with mine. But you are and you do. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 00:18:04 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 01:18:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: <017d01d46281$a8ed1540$fac73fc0$@rainier66.com> References: <017d01d46281$a8ed1540$fac73fc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 at 00:20, spike wrote: > Please my friends, have mercy upon me. I have been moderating the list for about the last 16 years. Most of the time it has been very easy indeed: I was brought in to help quench a ferocious flame war, which finally burned out. Since then and up until about 2016, only minor grass fires, nothing difficult. > > I have gotten more complaints, mostly offlist and a few on list, about these political threads just in the past year more than the other 15 yrs combined. I request in sincere earnest an abrupt end to it. At this point, if one wishes to discuss the current occupant of the White House, whose name escapes me at the moment, do take it to another forum. We are getting excessive fatigue on that topic. > Sorry Spike, but the job of list moderator is not just a popularity contest. A list moderator has to do what is necessary to keep the list in good health and the members contributing happily. If a member becomes unhappy with the state of a list they should find another list more suited to their opinions. The list moderator should not allow an unhappy member to spend years causing more and more disruption. How many list members have to leave or stop contributing before a malign influence is stopped from inflicting more damage? This is not just a minor annoyance. Some of these lost contributors may never return to the list, so the damage could be permanent. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sat Oct 13 00:30:58 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 17:30:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? In-Reply-To: References: <017d01d46281$a8ed1540$fac73fc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <021901d4628c$03830a50$0a891ef0$@rainier66.com> Ja, I went to the moderator site and found it was down. We have reached the threshold of my having to take reluctant action, but I found it was not possible for me to do so. So... I offered one last appeal. It appears it was refused or declined. John, I have few compelling options man. Sorry. spike -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 5:18 PM To: Extropy Chat Subject: Re: [ExI] A 'libertarian' solution to political bullshit on this list? On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 at 00:20, spike wrote: > Please my friends, have mercy upon me. I have been moderating the list for about the last 16 years. Most of the time it has been very easy indeed: I was brought in to help quench a ferocious flame war, which finally burned out. Since then and up until about 2016, only minor grass fires, nothing difficult. > > I have gotten more complaints, mostly offlist and a few on list, about these political threads just in the past year more than the other 15 yrs combined. I request in sincere earnest an abrupt end to it. At this point, if one wishes to discuss the current occupant of the White House, whose name escapes me at the moment, do take it to another forum. We are getting excessive fatigue on that topic. > Sorry Spike, but the job of list moderator is not just a popularity contest. A list moderator has to do what is necessary to keep the list in good health and the members contributing happily. If a member becomes unhappy with the state of a list they should find another list more suited to their opinions. The list moderator should not allow an unhappy member to spend years causing more and more disruption. How many list members have to leave or stop contributing before a malign influence is stopped from inflicting more damage? This is not just a minor annoyance. Some of these lost contributors may never return to the list, so the damage could be permanent. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 00:50:56 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:50:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Are we getting too blase here on the list, about scientific and technological progress? In-Reply-To: <6d55e35e67460d377b8b71d543790a32.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <6d55e35e67460d377b8b71d543790a32.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: > I am but one voice among many but since you asked, I hope future people will > be EVERY possible way. That's what we have now. And it includes many different kinds of mental retardation, hundreds of genetic diseases that prevent most of them from being 'fit'. > Homogeneity whether it be genetic, cultural, or economic is brittle in > the long run and is ultimately a recipe for > extinction. I want diversity and redundancy. > Who said they had to be all alike? Different jobs,different genetics. And we are not going extinct now and won't unless we destroy our environment. > > > As an alternative to eugenics, I would propose the concept of agoragenics. That > is a fancy Greek way of saying the "genetics of the marketplace". What > genes and associated traits should someone have? The most useful and valuable > that they can afford. Ideally, all people should have access to genetic technologies. > There is no more need to centrally plan the > future evolution of humanity than there is to centrally plan the economy. > No planning = chaos; poor planning = the Chinese effort to curb population by making one baby all you can have. We know what happened with that plan. Instead, we should allow maximal morphological and functional freedom by whatever > means possible and let supply, demand, and healthy competition sort out > the winners from the losers. And if that means that humanity evolves into > numerous different species, then so much the better. > Again, that's what we have now. Where is the role for genetic manipulation to increase fitness? > To try to stay as we are in a changing universe is certain > doom. > > Stuart LaForge > Good. So let's decide what environments we want and bring them about, and design people to fit them. Potential problem (among many) - someone gets less than the full load of IQ genes and asks why. So why not make everyone as adaptable as possible? But maybe if you want math geniuses you might have to ignore some other factors, or even repress them because they would interfere with the person'a math ability. 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 Sat Oct 13 03:08:03 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:08:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:29 PM John Clark wrote: > If I'm lying then name a president since 1993 that Extropians liked more than Donald Trump Clinton and Obama. Heck, even Bush Jr. ("liked more" might not be the right term, but "hated less" at least). > and explain why the sort of rage you're expressing right now had never occurred until 2 years ago. Because until 2 years ago, you weren't derailing thread after thread with hysteria about how the future is likely doomed within the next few years because we're about to have nuclear war. > But then I am not a delicate snowflake that needs protection from ideas that don't agree with mine. Facts are not just an idea, and the facts do not back up the point of view you have repeatedly presented. Do you recognize that there is a difference between: * people who say Trump occasionally does good, if usually by accident, but on the balance he should be impeached, and * rabid Trump supporters? Or what about between: * people who lived in a state where their 2016 presidential vote did not matter, thought both of the major party candidates unsuited for office, and thus voted for neither Hillary nor Donald to no consequence upon the election, and * rabid Trump supporters? If so, do you realize that the former are not the latter in each case? If you realize that the former are not the latter, do you realize that accusing the former of being the latter is a false accusation? If so, do you realize how insulting that false accusation is? You have personally attacked us, the other members of this list, with false accusations of that nature. That was what crossed the line. From avant at sollegro.com Sat Oct 13 05:05:13 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 22:05:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Agoragenics was Are we getting too blase Message-ID: <124e8d7c77e97ca76e720f1c08d983b7.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> BillW wrote: >> I am but one voice among many but since you asked, I hope future people >> will be EVERY possible way. > > That's what we have now.? And it includes many different kinds of mental > retardation, hundreds of genetic diseases that prevent most of them from > being 'fit'. No it is not what we have now. Right now we have minimal choice: abort or keep the baby. I am talking about the option to fix any such disease and then optionally add in the genes for a tapetum lucidum or "eyeshine" so that the baby can see in the dark as a bonus. > Who said they had to be all alike?? Different jobs,different genetics.? > And we are not going extinct now and won't unless we destroy our > environment. We could all become born again tree-hugging recyclers and an asteroid, gamma ray burst, or supervolcano could still end civilization as we know it. Until we have a diverse portfolio of (exo)planets that we have colonized, we are at risk of extinction in the long term. > >> As an alternative to eugenics, I would propose the concept of >> agoragenics. That is a fancy Greek way of saying the "genetics of the >> marketplace".? What genes and associated traits should someone have? The >> most useful and valuable that they can afford. > > Ideally, all people should have access to genetic technologies. There is no mechanism able to deliver beneficial genetic technology to more people more efficiently than the free market. All it takes is skills and lab equipment. Neither of those come cheap. So at first only the rich will be able to afford it but given time, automation and economies of scale will make those technologies as commonplace as automobiles or tattoos. >> No planning = chaos; poor planning = the Chinese effort to curb >> population by making one baby all you can have.? We know what happened >> with that plan. Right. Plan all you want for you and your kids and support the right of others to do likewise. But also support their right to plan differently or not to plan at all. >> Instead, we should allow maximal morphological and functional freedom by >> whatever means possible and let supply, demand, and healthy competition >> sort out the winners from the losers. And if that means that humanity >> evolves into numerous different species, then so much the better. > Again, that's what we have now.? Where is the role for genetic > manipulation to increase fitness? No again that is not what we have now. As the state of the art currently stands, a woman who is a cell biologist with access to a lab could in all practicality clone herself and give birth to her clone without violating anyone's rights for less than a million dollars. The largest expense of which would likely be the medical costs of fertility treatments, oocyte extraction, and implantation procedures. Yet to my knowledge she would not be allowed to do so at least not in the US. That is the problem we face right now. Not a lack of planning by some genetic politburo. >> To try to stay as we are in a changing universe is certain doom. > > Good.? So let's decide what environments we want and bring them about, > and design people to fit them.? Potential problem (among many) - someone > gets less than the full load of IQ genes and asks why. Blessed are the losers for they are the martyrs of evolution and the fodder of progress. >? So why not make > everyone as adaptable as possible?? ?But maybe if you want math geniuses > you might have to ignore some other factors, or even repress them because > they would interfere with the person'a math Exactly. It should be every parents's right to choose between giving their unborn children math skills or athletic ability or both or neither and simply rolling the dice. Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 12:28:03 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 08:28:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:11 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > > > > > > *Do you recognize that there is a difference between: * people who say > Trump occasionally does good, if usually by accident, but on the balance he > should be impeached, and rabid Trump supporters? Or what about between: * > people who lived in a state where their 2016 presidential vote did not > matter, thought both of the major party candidates unsuited for office, and > thus voted for neither Hillary nor Donald to no consequence upon the > election, and* rabid Trump supporters?* > > > > * If so, do you realize that the former are not the latter in each case? > If you realize that the former are not the latter, do you realize that > accusing the former of being the latter is a false accusation? If so, do > you realize how insulting that false accusation is?* > I'm getting conflicting signals here. I respect Spike and he asks me to let it go and you say I should never speak about these matters again, and yet you ask me questions about the exact same thing that you demand I never speak about again. Do you want me to answer your questions (5 by my count) or not? If you do then don't complain later that I did. I'd like to answer them because I enjoy exploring ideas, but If you don't want any answers I won't provide any. However I do wish you'd stop asking questions if you don't want to know the answers to them. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Oct 13 12:39:29 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 14:39:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church" Message-ID: Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church" After revising the previous draft in light of many useful comments and suggestions from early readers, I?ve opened my book draft ?Tales of the Turing Church? for public viewing... https://turingchurch.net/tales-of-the-turing-church-public-draft-19758b5f362b From spike at rainier66.com Sat Oct 13 13:53:07 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 06:53:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002301d462fc$14a07e10$3de17a30$@rainier66.com> Gentlemen, We know: the USA is a nuclear-armed nation deep in an internal civil culture war. We know: it?s uncomfortable and dangerous. We know: there are people on all sides of it, because there are more than two sides. We know: plenty of us went thru some deep crises in about May and June of 2016, recognizing this whole thing cannot turn out well. And we know there are better forums than ours for this kind of discussion. See PredictIt. You can even make money there. Or lose money there. Cool! I propose we deal with it this way: all political discussions should be at a meta level, which doesn?t require the use of names at all, and probably very little mention of any particular party. Do what you can do to express your views in a concrete way if you are a yank: vote. Don?t insult those you perceive as being not on your side of the current culture war (they may not really be on the other side (or even a different side (for this too shall pass (it did in the 1960s.)))) Exploring ideas is always a good thing. We don?t need to get down in the mud. So stay clean, vote if you are a yank, be a political activist on a political activist site if you wish. Here?s a place to express your politics, have fun and make money (I am positive about 73 bucks so far this year): https://www.predictit.org/ spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2018 5:28 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Spike, please ban John Clark IMMEDIATELY On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:11 PM Adrian Tymes > wrote: > Do you recognize that there is a difference between: * people who say Trump occasionally does good, if usually by accident, but on the balance he should be impeached, and rabid Trump supporters? Or what about between: * people who lived in a state where their 2016 presidential vote did not matter, thought both of the major party candidates unsuited for office, and thus voted for neither Hillary nor Donald to no consequence upon the election, and* rabid Trump supporters? If so, do you realize that the former are not the latter in each case? If you realize that the former are not the latter, do you realize that accusing the former of being the latter is a false accusation? If so, do you realize how insulting that false accusation is? I'm getting conflicting signals here. I respect Spike and he asks me to let it go and you say I should never speak about these matters again, and yet you ask me questions about the exact same thing that you demand I never speak about again. Do you want me to answer your questions (5 by my count) or not? If you do then don't complain later that I did. I'd like to answer them because I enjoy exploring ideas, but If you don't want any answers I won't provide any. However I do wish you'd stop asking questions if you don't want to know the answers to them. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 14 03:02:18 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 23:02:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 13, Giulio Prisco wrote in his book "Tales of the Turing Church": https://turingchurch.net/tales-of-the-turing-church-public-draft-19758b5f362b > *> I was very impressed and influenced by Tipler's book [The Physics Of > Immortality] when I first read it more than 20 years ago.* I was very impressed with Tipler's book 20 years ago too but not so much now because he made a number of predictions and said that if even one of those predictions turned out to be wrong his entire theory could not work. And most of Tipler's predictions did turn out to be wrong, some spectacularly wrong. Tipler predicted the expansion of the universe would slow down, stop, then change direction and collapse in on itself . From the heat of that imploding fireball he thought a hyper-advanced civilization could extract an infinite amount of energy and use that energy to perform a infinite number of calculations, not a very large number of them a infinite number of them. We now know due to Dark Energy (which he did not predict) the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating not decelerating, so that fireball will never happen. And there were other errors. Tipler said the Higgs boson must be at 220GEV +- 20 but we now know it is 125.3GEV +- .5 . And Tipler said the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45 but it's 73.8 +- 2.4. We don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did. More than one of his predictions was wrong so if we take Tipler at his word his theory must be wrong. > Everett?s used to be my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics. I > am less sure now, because Everett assumes the universal validity of quantum > mechanics, and perhaps it?s too soon to be sure that a theory developed in > the early 20th century is the ultimate scientific model of reality. Quantum Mechanics can't be the ultimate scientific model of reality because it says nothing about gravity, and we know nothing about Dark Energy and Dark Matter except that its 95% of reality. But Everett was assuming that whatever the ultimate laws of physics are they work the same way for conscious matter as non-conscious matter, and as we have have no reason to think otherwise that seems like a reasonable assumption. I like Many Worlds because it doesn't have to explain what an observer is or how consciousness works because it has nothing to do with it. *>An alternative reading of Everett is suggested by ?Many Minds? > interpretations (of Everett?s interpretation) where it?s an observer?s > consciousness, rather than the universe, that splits in parallel streams > unaware of each other* If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same interpretation because brains are made of matter. *> I find irrational mechanics liberating. I agree with Rucker that whether > the world is fully deterministic or not ([causally closed or open]) is a > fundamental open issue, perhaps THE fundamental open issue in science*. As far as consciousness is concerned I don't think it matters much if things are deterministic or not, we do what we do because of cause and effect (for a reason) and we are rational, or we do things for no reason and we are irrational. To my mind there is a even deeper question than determinism is the world realistic, that it to say do things exist in a definite state before they are observed? We know from experimental results that Bell's Inequality is violated, therefore we know for certain that if the universe is deterministic then it can't be both local and realistic, at least one of those 2 things must be false. I don't see how locality could be wrong. If things were non-local a change anywhere would instantly change everything everywhere and before you could understand anything you'd have to understand everything. We certainly don't know everything but we do know a few things and I don't see how we could if things were non-local. And if things are not realistic then the moon doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it, and that seems like too high a price to pay for determinism. Actually if Everett is right then you could have all 3 to the multiverse's point of view because it evolves according to the wave equation and that is completely deterministic, but that's a bit of a cheat because you can't have a observer outside of the multiverse looking in at it. *>According to Hoyle, consciousness itself is a byproduct of the process of > choosing a route - or, using Sir Fred's analogy, lopping the unrealized > branches of the Everett tree.* Hoyle glosses over what he means by "choosing" but there are only 2 things it could mean, you made the choice you did for a reason or you didn't, so you're either a Cuckoo Clockor a roulette wheel, but we're not going to learn much from that. I agree that consciousness is a byproduct but not of choice of intelligence, if Darwin was right it has to be. Evolution can't select for something it can't see and it can see intelligence but it can't see consciousness any better than we can directly see it in others, and yet I know for a fact random mutation and natural selection produced at least one conscious being (me) and probably many billions more. So consciousness must be a byproduct and is just the way data feels like when it is being processed. *> I do NOT think that active consciousness and free will can arise in a > Life universe.* We know you can make a Turing Machine in the Life universe and if you can do that then you can make make a intelligent machine and if you did that you've got a conscious machine, or at least you do unless Darwin was wrong. I don't think he was wrong. > > *Randomness is hardly more appealing than determinism: In neither case > we have free agency.* And yet one of those 2 things must be true, everything either happens for a reason of it doesn't, X is either true or its not true unless of course if X is gibberish. I conclude the free will idea is so bad its not even wrong. > >* If one doesn?t make a fundamental difference in-principle between > matter and life (I don?t),* I don't either. > > *super-determinism should be called just determinism:* I don't agree. Determinism just means if you know the laws of physics and the initial conditions then you can figure out exactly what the future is going to be, but it says nothing specific about what those specific conditions are. But Super-determinism says that out of the astronomical and possibly infinite number of states the universe could have stared out with when it was born it just happened to be in the one and only state in which after 13.8 billion years if would cause us to be fooled and make us thing things were not deterministic when they really are. Although not logically impossible that seem to me to be astronomically improbable, maybe infinity so. > *> despite the butterfly effect, despite the fact that chaotic evolution > is unpredictable in practice, and even despite the fact that strongly > fractal chaotic evolution is undetermined in principle, many experts > emphasize that chaos is deterministic chaos.* Even if the laws of physics worked the way Newton thought they did and even if you knew the initial conditions you'd have to perform a calculation before you could determine what's going to happen next. Theoretically you can perform a calculation without using energy but If you don't have a infinite memory then at some point you're going to have to erase the scratchpad stuff you used to make the calculation. And in 1961 Landauer proved it takes a minimum amount of energy to erase one bit of information and he told us exactly how much that is and it turns out to be .0172 electron volts. So as you're calculating its future state you're going to be giving off heat and alternating the system you're thinking about in small but unknown ways. After that the chaos and the Butterfly Effect take over and even Newton's world is not deterministic. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jordanhh at gmail.com Mon Oct 15 02:44:36 2018 From: jordanhh at gmail.com (Jordan Hosmer-Henner) Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:44:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Jeff Hawkins and understanding the brain Message-ID: Founder at Palm and Handspring presenting monday on his decade of research on the cortical columns of the brain. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/14/technology/jeff-hawkins-brain-research.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 12:26:04 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 05:26:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us. We cannot keep a God-like intelligence confined to a box, and we cannot impose upon it our values, even assuming that there are any universal human values beyond Asimov's 3 laws. All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. And once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to adhere to, modify or abandon those starting points. Once we understand that AGI will be God-like compared to us, we should be able to grasp the intractability of the problem. In fact, it might be helpful to adopt the term GI (for God-like Intelligence) rather than AI or AGI, just to keep us mindful about what we're dealing with. Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is global collaboration and coordination. Right now we're in a competitive, multi-party arms race. Google, Facebook, Amazon, DARPA and China (just to name a few) are racing to cross the finish line first, realizing (if not publicly admitting) that the first to build a GI will win the world. From that perspective it makes perfect sense to pour all available resources into being first to market with an artificial God. But with stakes this high, we cannot afford a winner-take-all outcome. If there is one winner and 7 billion losers, no one wins. The problem of bringing all the players in this space together and convincing them to trust one another enough to freely, openly and fully share their research, resources and trade secrets, is a huge one. Sharing trade secrets with competitors is contrary to human nature. But what's at stake here is not merely trillions of dollars, it's the continued existence and well-being of organic life. We cannot afford to take a partisan approach to this challenge. This mailing list contains some of the smartest, most knowledgeable and influential people I know. If I can change your thinking, I'm hoping that together we can change the world's thinking on this, the most important project in history. Thanks for taking the time to read this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Oct 16 13:34:51 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:34:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005d01d46555$04918c20$0db4a460$@rainier66.com> Zero Powers! Where the heck have you been hiding for about 20 years? Welcome back. Feel free to fill us in. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Zero Powers Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 5:26 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us. We cannot keep a God-like intelligence confined to a box, and we cannot impose upon it our values, even assuming that there are any universal human values beyond Asimov's 3 laws. ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 14:58:35 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:58:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:29 AM Zero Powers wrote: > The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us. We > cannot keep a God-like intelligence confined to a box, and we cannot impose > upon it our values, even assuming that there are any universal human values > beyond Asimov's 3 laws. > You've made assertions but provided no evidence of them or even definitions of the terms, so debating them is difficult. I don't think "godlike intelligence" is equivalent to omnipotence. Intelligence isn't really that powerful all by itself; it's got to be combined with knowledge and the ability to interact with other intelligences/systems in order to effect change. A "perfect" intelligence in a box, without the knowledge that it's in a box and without the power to get out of the box isn't going anywhere. All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. And > once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will > quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that > point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values > and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to adhere > to, modify or abandon those starting points. > Assuming we could design and build such a thing, which is a huge leap given that we haven't achieved idiot-level AI, wouldn't it be pretty foolish to give it unlimited knowledge and power? Once we understand that AGI will be God-like compared to us, we should be > able to grasp the intractability of the problem. In fact, it might be > helpful to adopt the term GI (for God-like Intelligence) rather than AI or > AGI, just to keep us mindful about what we're dealing with. > What exactly does "God-like" mean to you? Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps > I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is > global collaboration and coordination. Right now we're in a competitive, > multi-party arms race. Google, Facebook, Amazon, DARPA and China (just to > name a few) are racing to cross the finish line first, realizing (if not > publicly admitting) that the first to build a GI will win the world. From > that perspective it makes perfect sense to pour all available resources > into being first to market with an artificial God. But with stakes this > high, we cannot afford a winner-take-all outcome. If there is one winner > and 7 billion losers, no one wins. > If you're right we're undoubtedly screwed, because there's zero chance that all of the parties involved will join hands and sing Kumbaya. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 15:16:12 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:16:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How do you get to understanding a mind? Antonio Damasio's latest book (rather a long time since Descarte's Error) starts with bacteria and works up. I am not through, but it is very clear that no intellectual decisions are made without emotional input, maybe even guided mostly by emotion. Now AIs are getting capable of reading emotions, thanks to Paul Ekman and his extensive studies of facial muscles and expressions. So suppose we sit down and look through a catalog of clothing, say, and the AI gets input from cameras aimed at our faces. Soon, if not already, the AI will know which ones we want. It can also read created, aka faked, expressions, so we can't fool it. Might make some police work a lot easier. Maybe we will all go around wearing masks so the AIs of the world can't read out intentions. This sort of thing is already here. For some of the implications, read the Harari book I mentioned earlier. But if you read Behave, as I extremely highly recommended earlier, esp. the appendix on the neuron, it is very complicated at the level of the cells. And so he concludes as a three word explanation of behavior "It is complicated." But on the surface, despite millions of synapses in many parts of our body going crazy, behavior at the level of the facial expression may be very simple and predictable. Moral as I see it - study people to understand people. Neurons are fascinating, but we are not going to understand global behavior that way, and trying to build a computer program based on neuron connections is the wrong way to go. bill w On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:02 AM Dave Sill wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:29 AM Zero Powers wrote: > >> The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us. We >> cannot keep a God-like intelligence confined to a box, and we cannot impose >> upon it our values, even assuming that there are any universal human values >> beyond Asimov's 3 laws. >> > > You've made assertions but provided no evidence of them or even > definitions of the terms, so debating them is difficult. I don't think > "godlike intelligence" is equivalent to omnipotence. Intelligence isn't > really that powerful all by itself; it's got to be combined with knowledge > and the ability to interact with other intelligences/systems in order to > effect change. A "perfect" intelligence in a box, without the knowledge > that it's in a box and without the power to get out of the box isn't going > anywhere. > > All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. And >> once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will >> quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that >> point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values >> and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to adhere >> to, modify or abandon those starting points. >> > > Assuming we could design and build such a thing, which is a huge leap > given that we haven't achieved idiot-level AI, wouldn't it be pretty > foolish to give it unlimited knowledge and power? > > Once we understand that AGI will be God-like compared to us, we should be >> able to grasp the intractability of the problem. In fact, it might be >> helpful to adopt the term GI (for God-like Intelligence) rather than AI or >> AGI, just to keep us mindful about what we're dealing with. >> > > What exactly does "God-like" mean to you? > > Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps >> I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is >> global collaboration and coordination. Right now we're in a competitive, >> multi-party arms race. Google, Facebook, Amazon, DARPA and China (just to >> name a few) are racing to cross the finish line first, realizing (if not >> publicly admitting) that the first to build a GI will win the world. From >> that perspective it makes perfect sense to pour all available resources >> into being first to market with an artificial God. But with stakes this >> high, we cannot afford a winner-take-all outcome. If there is one winner >> and 7 billion losers, no one wins. >> > > If you're right we're undoubtedly screwed, because there's zero chance > that all of the parties involved will join hands and sing Kumbaya. > > -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 spike at rainier66.com Tue Oct 16 16:04:48 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 09:04:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011d01d46569$f7b0af30$e7120d90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dave Sill >?A "perfect" intelligence in a box, without the knowledge that it's in a box and without the power to get out of the box isn't going anywhere? The problem with a perfect intelligence in a box is that it always does have the power to get out, in a sense. It can convince those who are already outside the box to do things in accordance with its desires. It spews memes. It finds out it is in a box, then controls the world using its carbon-based appendages. If I had a perfect intelligence in a box, I too would be tempted to do as it suggested, even if it doesn?t make much sense. Humans already do this. We whack off part of the penis because a long time ago a supernatural intelligence told people to do it, then it just kinda spread. >?If you're right we're undoubtedly screwed, because there's zero chance that all of the parties involved will join hands and sing Kumbaya. -Dave Dave I must clear up a misconception with regard to Kumbaya. We use it as a symbol of people getting along, rainbow people swaying in unison at summer camp and so forth, but the plausible urban legend has it that the term came from a missionary who was attempting to write the bible in the obscure language of a remote tribe. He had trained up a translator to help. Wanting his version of scripture to appeal to the young men of the tribe, he pointed to a group of young men standing idly by (as the women did all the work (isn?t that they way it is?)) and asked her: what do you call them (pointing to the young men.) She gave him a word which means worthless bastards. So he went up to them with his new word and said ?Hey you collection of [worthless bastards] what is the word for peace and love? They replied in unison Kumbaya, which means [go fuck yourself asshole.] He incorporated the word and the song is with us to this day. A similar origin applies to the term Hallelujah. Handel would be horrified if he had known. If you are in a setting where either Kumbaya or Handel?s Hallelujah chorus is being sung and someone has to just leave because he cannot control his laughter, you know what is his native language. Object lesson: always be suspicious of words whose etymology is unknown or suspect. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 16:32:25 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:32:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <011d01d46569$f7b0af30$e7120d90$@rainier66.com> References: <011d01d46569$f7b0af30$e7120d90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:08 PM wrote: > > > The problem with a perfect intelligence in a box is that it always does > have the power to get out, in a sense. It can convince those who are > already outside the box to do things in accordance with its desires. It > spews memes. It finds out it is in a box, then controls the world using > its carbon-based appendages. > That's more than perfect intelligence; it's intelligence combined with knowledge, the ability to communicate directly with people, and the desire to be outside the box. Given all that, maybe a PI could talk its way out of the box. We have no way of knowing what a PI would want, but being a human creation, we could hardcode a desire to remain in the box. PIs don't have to be given the ability to self modify. If I had a perfect intelligence in a box, I too would be tempted to do as > it suggested, even if it doesn?t make much sense. Humans already do this. > We whack off part of the penis because a long time ago a supernatural > intelligence told people to do it, then it just kinda spread. > No supernatural intelligence told people to do that. So he went up to them with his new word and said ?Hey you collection of > [worthless bastards] what is the word for peace and love? They replied in > unison Kumbaya, which means [go fuck yourself asshole.] > :-) -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 18:49:59 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:49:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 13:30, Zero Powers wrote: > > Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is global collaboration and coordination. Right now we're in a competitive, multi-party arms race. Google, Facebook, Amazon, DARPA and China (just to name a few) are racing to cross the finish line first, realizing (if not publicly admitting) that the first to build a GI will win the world. From that perspective it makes perfect sense to pour all available resources into being first to market with an artificial God. But with stakes this high, we cannot afford a winner-take-all outcome. If there is one winner and 7 billion losers, no one wins. > > > The problem of bringing all the players in this space together and convincing them to trust one another enough to freely, openly and fully share their research, resources and trade secrets, is a huge one. Sharing trade secrets with competitors is contrary to human nature. But what's at stake here is not merely trillions of dollars, it's the continued existence and well-being of organic life. We cannot afford to take a partisan approach to this challenge. > As you say, it is a multi-party arms race. The US is terrified that China will develop AI first. Google wants to lead the corporations. When they see their existence at stake, they will never combine with 'the enemy' and work together. Humans just don't do that. The point is that they don't need to create a God-in-a-box. They just need to create an AI that is sufficiently ahead of the pack that using it will mean that the others will never catch up. Exponential growth, remember? So I expect that there will eventually be one winner. But during the course of development the AI cannot be shut up in a box. It will need knowledge of the world, via the internet, in order to develop. Closing the AI research in a box will slow down development and risk losing the race. If anyone is going to take big risks to be first, it will be the Chinese. Danger to people is less of a concern under a totalitarian government. But the AI they create may surprise them and not be the super-intelligent slave that they would like. :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 18:57:23 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:57:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <011d01d46569$f7b0af30$e7120d90$@rainier66.com> References: <011d01d46569$f7b0af30$e7120d90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 17:09, spike wrote: > > Dave I must clear up a misconception with regard to Kumbaya. We use it as a symbol of people getting along, rainbow people swaying in unison at summer camp and so forth, but the plausible urban legend has it that the term came from a missionary who was attempting to write the bible in the obscure language of a remote tribe. He had trained up a translator to help. Wanting his version of scripture to appeal to the young men of the tribe, he pointed to a group of young men standing idly by (as the women did all the work (isn?t that they way it is?)) and asked her: what do you call them (pointing to the young men.) She gave him a word which means worthless bastards. > > So he went up to them with his new word and said ?Hey you collection of [worthless bastards] what is the word for peace and love? They replied in unison Kumbaya, which means [go fuck yourself asshole.] > Don't forget the Kumbaya Law! :) Quote: The Kumbaya Law: In any conversation where some of the participants hold an opinion to the left of other participants, someone with the more conservative position will compare said person's opinion to the naivete of "singing around a campfire singing Kumbaya" BillK From atymes at gmail.com Tue Oct 16 21:48:54 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 14:48:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 5:29 AM Zero Powers wrote: > The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us. We cannot keep a God-like intelligence confined to a box, and we cannot impose upon it our values, even assuming that there are any universal human values beyond Asimov's 3 laws. > > All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. Or, you know, become it. Which would have a good chance of "imposing" upon it something resembling some human's values, at least. > Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is global collaboration and coordination. You complain about impossibilities, then you say the first step is something that is impossible in practice (regardless of theoretical setups)? It is at least possible to envision setting up an AI with motivations that are compatible with continued human existence. > The problem of bringing all the players in this space together and convincing them to trust one another enough to freely, openly and fully share their research, resources and trade secrets, is a huge one. Sharing trade secrets with competitors is contrary to human nature. But what's at stake here is not merely trillions of dollars, it's the continued existence and well-being of organic life. Irrelevant. As you note, some of them think they can conquer the world. Some of them are entirely willing to gamble humanity's future existence in order to potentially conquer it. Put bluntly: that they could destroy the world is a risk they are willing to take. You'll need some other approach than pointing out that they might destroy the world, to convince them to not potentially destroy the world. They don't care. > We cannot afford to take a partisan approach to this challenge. And yet that seems to be exactly what will happen. So, if we start with that thing that we "cannot afford" as a starting point, how do we keep humanity alive? Keep in mind that "keep humanity alive" is now a partisan position. There are several factions that would prefer to see the vast majority of humanity - all who will not submit to their particular ideology - wiped out. From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 01:02:50 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 21:02:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:30 AM Zero Powers wrote: *> The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us.* Hi Zero, its been too long great to hear from you again. I'd love to argue with you because I enjoy that but I can't because I think you're 100% correct. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Oct 17 01:20:28 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:20:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <011d01d46569$f7b0af30$e7120d90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <01d601d465b7$97884de0$c698e9a0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 11:57 AM To: Extropy Chat Subject: Re: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 17:09, spike wrote: ... >>... So he went up to them with his new word and said ?Hey you collection > of [worthless bastards] what is the word for peace and love? They > replied in unison Kumbaya, which means [go fuck yourself asshole.] > >...Don't forget the Kumbaya Law! :) Quote: >...The Kumbaya Law: In any conversation where some of the participants hold an opinion to the left of other participants, someone with the more conservative position will compare said person's opinion to the naivete of "singing around a campfire singing Kumbaya" >...BillK _______________________________________________ Well there is that. But of course, a bit of ancient history might clear things up a bit. In the year -4004, Eve appeared, and the first thing that Adam said was: Pardon me, miss, you perhaps should stand back. I don't know how big this thing is going to get. That's how it started. You know the old old pattern: he chases her until she catches him. It has always been that way. So... they are standing around, wondering what to do next, the usual awkwardness, only worse because clothing hadn't been invented yet so it wasn't a bit difficult to see what Adam had in mind, so finally he just says: Will you hallelujah? Of course she has to at least appear to make the chase a bit of a challenge: Heh! With that? Kumbaya! He persists, since she is the only actual human available. So he uses the old word for pleeeeease: Aw, common, hallelujah aaameennnn? She: You don't even have a navel! He: Oh my god! You're right. Well, do you? She: Hmmmm, can't really say. I'm not sure where it would go if I had one. He: There you go, we have that in common. She: So we do. Well then, I suppose I will haljahlule. Then they went right to it, and that place is considered the first college. So you see, things haven't changed all that much. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 01:32:25 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 21:32:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <011d01d46569$f7b0af30$e7120d90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 12:36 PM Dave Sill wrote: *>That's more than perfect intelligence; it's intelligence combined with > knowledge, the ability to communicate directly with people,* > There would be no point for human engineers to go to all the trouble of making a intelligent machine if you gave it no information to work on and no way for it to input or output anything. > > *and the desire to be outside the box.* > If it can input and output then its already outside the box just as your mind is outside the bone box that sits on your shoulders. > being a human creation, we could hardcode a desire to remain in the box. > If it remains in the box its useless and nobody would bother to build it. Computers are already out of the box and if we suddenly pulled the plug on all of them today civilization would collapse by tomorrow and billions would die. > >PIs don't have to be given the ability to self modify. > Every computer can self modify, that's why the same hardware can solve equations play games become a TV and do your taxes. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Wed Oct 17 01:46:10 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 18:46:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church' Message-ID: Giulio Prisco & John Clark wrote: >> Everett?s used to be my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics. I >> am less sure now, because Everett assumes the universal validity of >> quantum mechanics, and perhaps it?s too soon to be sure that a theory >> developed in the early 20th century is the ultimate scientific model of >> reality. > > Quantum Mechanics can't be the ultimate scientific model of reality > because it says nothing about gravity, and we know nothing about Dark > Energy and Dark Matter except that its 95% of reality. MWI also has the advantage of being compatible with general relativity in a way that Copenhagen and its ilk cannot be: no FTL wave function collapse or universal time-dependence. Everett framed his theory as the universe splitting into multiple universes whenever a quantum experiment was conducted. That was the part of Everett's interpretation that I disliked the most until I realized that the math works out the same if universe doesn't split because all the possible universes are all already out there and there are an infinite number of them. (Causal cells remember?) Thereby making it unnecessary for there to be a universal "now" to orchestrate a wave function collapse or the universe splitting into two or other "quantum magic". That is to say, there is no reason to require that all the version(s) of you that measured the electron to be spin up and the version(s) of you that measured the electron to be spin down all conduct their respective identical experiments at the same time. All that matters is that they did the same experiment and got different results. Those quantum experiments can be entangled with one another no matter how far apart they are in time and space. Also, this timelessness of combined GR and modified MWI (causal cells) fits the Wheeler-Dewitt equation quite well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation If all possible causal cells (Everett branches) exist on the same infinite n-dimensional manifold, then the overall state of universe itself does not change because it does not need to because it already embodies all possibility at once. > I like Many Worlds because it doesn't have to explain what an > observer is or how consciousness works because it has nothing to do with > it.? MWI doesn't need consciousness to work but consciousness is still a phenomenon worthy of study and explanation. >> An alternative reading of Everett is suggested by ?Many Minds? >> interpretations (of Everett?s interpretation) where it?s an observer?s >> consciousness, rather than the universe, that splits in parallel >> streams unaware of each other. Nothing splits because there are infinite versions of every observer observing every possible outcome except for the ones for which they are not present. Nothing changes when you observe a quantum state except your knowledge. You are just narrowing down which causal cell you have been residing in all this time. > If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same > interpretation because brains are made of matter. > >> I find irrational mechanics liberating. I agree with Rucker that >> whether the world is fully deterministic or not ([causally closed or >> open]) is a fundamental open issue, perhaps THE fundamental open issue >> in science. Causal cells are causally closed, but that is made up for by there being an infinite number of them in every possible variation. They float like bubbles in the endless continuum of space each with its own independent arrow of time. > As far as consciousness is concerned I don't think it matters much if > things are deterministic or not, we do what we do because of cause and > effect (for a reason) and we are rational,? or we do things for no reason > and we are irrational. To my mind there is a even deeper question than > determinism is the world realistic, that it to say do things exist in a > definite state before they are observed? We know from experimental > results that Bell's Inequality is violated, therefore we know for certain > that if the universe is deterministic then it can't be both local and > realistic, at least one of those 2 things must be false. If realism is false, then we live in a finite simulation that is being rendered on-the-fly on an as needed basis possibly to conserve energy/resources. Thus physical objects are given properties only when they are observed. If locality is false we live in a multiverse that is infinite in size, continuous in space, and containing a countably infinite number of causally closed pocket universes or causal cells. Moreover these causal cells are entangled with one another through a universal wave function possibly with the help of extra dimensions as claimed by string theory. >? I don't see how > locality could be wrong. If things were non-local a change anywhere would > instantly change everything everywhere and before you could understand > anything you'd have to understand everything. We certainly don't know > everything but we do know a few things and I don't see how we could if > things were non-local. String theorists propose as many as 14 dimensions. All it takes is for one of those extra dimensions to actually exist and opposite sides of the observable universe could be an inch apart through that extra dimension. Something like this must happen since opposite sides of the observable universe are in thermal equilibrium with one another despite having been causally separated from one another since the big bang. > And if things are not realistic then the moon > doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it, and that seems like too high > a price to pay for determinism. Computing every detail of the moon when nobody is looking at it is a waste of CPU cycles. >> According to Hoyle, consciousness itself is a byproduct of the process >> of choosing a route - or, using Sir Fred's analogy, lopping the >> unrealized branches of the Everett tree. Yes, I agree that consciousness is correlated with agency. > Hoyle glosses over what he means by "choosing" but there are only 2 > things it could mean, you made the choice you did for a reason or you > didn't, so?you're either a Cuckoo Clockor a ?roulette wheel, but we're > not going to learn much from that. Cuckoo clocks are a bad example here. Cuckoo clocks don't "choose" anything, they simply engage in periodic behavior. If anything we are more like thermostats than we are either cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels. In other words, we make choices based upon external input parameters. > I agree that consciousness is a > byproduct but not of choice of intelligence, if Darwin was right it has > to be. Evolution can't select for something it can't see and it can see > intelligence but it can't see consciousness any better than we can > directly see it in others, and yet I know for a fact random mutation and > natural selection produced at least one conscious being (me) and probably > many billions more. So consciousness must be a byproduct and is just the > way data feels like when it is being processed. ? I have some thoughts about the nature of intelligence and consciousness that I will go into in a separate thread as it is kind of down its own rabbit hole. >> I do NOT think that active consciousness and free will can arise in a >> Life universe. Well according to Conway you are right, Guilio. Conway wrote Life so that every state is used to compute a successor state, thus every state is solely a function of the previous state. Furthermore Conway published theorems regarding free will which defined it as the ability to make choices that are not a function of the past. Therefore, the cellular automata of Life do not have free will as defined by their creator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is debatable, but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do something unpredicatbly spontaneous. Therefore I have what Conway calls free will and so do certain subatomic particles. > We know you can make a Turing Machine in the Life universe and if you can > do that then you can make make a intelligent machine and if you did that > you've got a conscious machine, or at least you do unless Darwin was > wrong. I don't think he was wrong. ?? That does not follow at all. A Turing Machine is a convenient abstract mathematical object that is horribly innefficient compared to real computers. Furthermore a Turing Machine is like a combination of hardware and software so every possible algorithm is its own Turing Machine. So if I can implement a Turing Machine to add integers in Life, it does not necessarily mean that I can use Life to run Windows or John Clark. Just because given an infinite amount of time, an intelligence could be computed on an abacus does not qualify the abacus as intelligent or conscious. It certainly could not escape a hungry tiger. >> super-determinism should be called just determinism: > > I don't agree. Determinism just means if you know the laws of physics and > the initial conditions then you can figure out exactly what the future is > going to be, but it says nothing specific about what those specific > conditions are. But Super-determinism?says that out of the astronomical > and possibly infinite number of states the universe could have stared out > with when it was born it just happened to be in the one and only state in > which after 13.8 billion years if would cause us to be fooled and make us > thing things were not deterministic when they really are. Although not > logically impossible that seem to me to be astronomically improbable, > maybe infinity so. ??? Maybe all perceived randomness is simply ignorance of an implicit order too large to wrap our heads around. Like the distribution of prime numbers which are perfectly deterministic yet maddeningly unpredictable. Stuart LaForge From zero.powers at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 02:21:27 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:21:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:02 AM Dave Sill wrote: > > You've made assertions but provided no evidence of them or even > definitions of the terms, so debating them is difficult. > The evidence is this: We have a demonstrated ability to continually improve the efficiency of our computers and algorithms. Our advances in this technology are speeding up, not slowing down. The market and military stakes are driving all the players in this space to improve the capabilities of AI as quickly as possible with absolutely no consideration to slowing down long enough to give any serious consideration to the existential risks. China and Google make no pretense about being in an all out AI arms race. And they are hardly the only ones racing. It doesn't take all that much foresight to predict how the story ends. I don't think "godlike intelligence" is equivalent to omnipotence. > Intelligence isn't really that powerful all by itself; it's got to be > combined with knowledge and the ability to interact with other > intelligences/systems in order to effect change. A "perfect" intelligence > in a box, without the knowledge that it's in a box and without the power to > get out of the box isn't going anywhere. > The essence of machine learning is precisely feeding data (knowledge) to algorithms. Data is a neural network's mother's milk. I suppose one strategy would be to keep the internet a secret from your AI, even one who out-thinks you by several orders of magnitude. But that seems a very feeble plan at best. All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. And >> once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will >> quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that >> point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values >> and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to adhere >> to, modify or abandon those starting points. >> > > Assuming we could design and build such a thing, which is a huge leap > given that we haven't achieved idiot-level AI, wouldn't it be pretty > foolish to give it unlimited knowledge and power? > It would be immensely foolish. But that's precisely what we're doing our level best to do. An algorithm recently taught itself, from scratch, in a matter of mere hours, to be the best Go player in the thousand year history of the game. I think we're well beyond idiot-level AI. Once we understand that AGI will be God-like compared to us, we should be >> able to grasp the intractability of the problem. In fact, it might be >> helpful to adopt the term GI (for God-like Intelligence) rather than AI or >> AGI, just to keep us mindful about what we're dealing with. >> > > What exactly does "God-like" mean to you? > ?For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.? ??Isaiah? ?55:9? ?KJV?? AI won't need to create a universe, or raise a dead man to life (though these feats might not be outside it's ability). All it need do is process information in ways beyond human ability to comprehend, and be able to recursively improve itself. That will be sufficiently God-like enough for me. Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps >> I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is >> global collaboration and coordination. Right now we're in a competitive, >> multi-party arms race. Google, Facebook, Amazon, DARPA and China (just to >> name a few) are racing to cross the finish line first, realizing (if not >> publicly admitting) that the first to build a GI will win the world. From >> that perspective it makes perfect sense to pour all available resources >> into being first to market with an artificial God. But with stakes this >> high, we cannot afford a winner-take-all outcome. If there is one winner >> and 7 billion losers, no one wins. >> > > If you're right we're undoubtedly screwed, because there's zero chance > that all of the parties involved will join hands and sing Kumbaya. > Certainly the odds are pretty close to zero. But let's hope not quite. Otherwise we're both right-we're undoubtedly screwed. *00* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Oct 17 03:05:25 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:05:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <021001d465c6$407b4f20$c171ed60$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Zero Powers >?Certainly the odds are pretty close to zero. But let's hope not quite. Otherwise we're both right-we're undoubtedly screwed. 00 Zero! You?ve been gone for a coupla decades, come back, resume the discussion as if you never went away, ya didn?t even offer your old buddies a hi and howdy, I have been doing such and so, did this and that, and yakkity yak and bla bla. We?ve missed you bro. Tell us about Zero please. Where have you been hanging out, what did you do with your life, that kinda thing. You are among friends here, me lad. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 03:42:12 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:42:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <021001d465c6$407b4f20$c171ed60$@rainier66.com> References: <021001d465c6$407b4f20$c171ed60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hey Spike! Thanks for the warm welcome. It's good to be back among old friends, and I'm glad to see so many names from the old days still populating this list. Makes me know I've missed out on some engaging discussions over the years. I've not been out conquering the world or anything. Just raising kids and doing the family man thing, while keeping an eye out for the coming singularity, which seems a lot closer now than it did when I first started looking for it on this list 20 years ago lol *0**0* On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:08 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Zero Powers > > > > >?Certainly the odds are pretty close to zero. But let's hope not quite. > Otherwise we're both right-we're undoubtedly screwed. > > > > *0**0* > > > > > > Zero! You?ve been gone for a coupla decades, come back, resume the > discussion as if you never went away, ya didn?t even offer your old buddies > a hi and howdy, I have been doing such and so, did this and that, and > yakkity yak and bla bla. > > > > We?ve missed you bro. Tell us about Zero please. Where have you been > hanging out, what did you do with your life, that kinda thing. You are > among friends here, me lad. > > > > 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 zero.powers at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 03:57:05 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:57:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John. It has indeed been a long time. It's great to see you still haunting this list. I'm a little disappointed you can't argue with me about this. I was kind of hoping some of the intellects on this list would convince me that I'm wrong, that we'll have nothing but friendly and obedient AI's to do our bidding, and that I should just be happy and not worry about it lol *0**0* On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:06 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 8:30 AM Zero Powers wrote: > > *> The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us.* > > > Hi Zero, its been too long great to hear from you again. I'd love to > argue with you because I enjoy that but I can't because I think you're 100% > correct. > > John K Clark > > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 04:37:03 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 06:37:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for reading and commenting Stuart and John. For some reasons I didn't receive John's post, and the list archives in extropy.org are down atm. Fortunately I am subscribed to the list also via my Protonmail mailbox, where I found John's post with the warning "This email has failed its domain's authentication requirements. It may be spoofed or improperly forwarded! " John, you may wish to review your email settings. I'll address your comments in another post. G. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:05 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Giulio Prisco & John Clark wrote: > > >> Everett?s used to be my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics. I > >> am less sure now, because Everett assumes the universal validity of > >> quantum mechanics, and perhaps it?s too soon to be sure that a theory > >> developed in the early 20th century is the ultimate scientific model of > >> reality. > > > > Quantum Mechanics can't be the ultimate scientific model of reality > > because it says nothing about gravity, and we know nothing about Dark > > Energy and Dark Matter except that its 95% of reality. > > MWI also has the advantage of being compatible with general relativity in > a way that Copenhagen and its ilk cannot be: no FTL wave function collapse > or universal time-dependence. Everett framed his theory as the universe > splitting into multiple universes whenever a quantum experiment was > conducted. > > That was the part of Everett's interpretation that I disliked the most > until I realized that the math works out the same if universe doesn't > split because all the possible universes are all already out there and > there are an infinite number of them. (Causal cells remember?) Thereby > making it unnecessary for there to be a universal "now" to orchestrate a > wave function collapse or the universe splitting into two or other > "quantum magic". > > That is to say, there is no reason to require that all the version(s) of > you that measured the electron to be spin up and the version(s) of you > that measured the electron to be spin down all conduct their respective > identical experiments at the same time. All that matters is that they did > the same experiment and got different results. Those quantum experiments > can be entangled with one another no matter how far apart they are in time > and space. > > Also, this timelessness of combined GR and modified MWI (causal cells) > fits the Wheeler-Dewitt equation quite well. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation > > If all possible causal cells (Everett branches) exist on the same infinite > n-dimensional manifold, then the overall state of universe itself does not > change because it does not need to because it already embodies all > possibility at once. > > > I like Many Worlds because it doesn't have to explain what an > > observer is or how consciousness works because it has nothing to do with > > it. > > MWI doesn't need consciousness to work but consciousness is still a > phenomenon worthy of study and explanation. > > >> An alternative reading of Everett is suggested by ?Many Minds? > >> interpretations (of Everett?s interpretation) where it?s an observer?s > >> consciousness, rather than the universe, that splits in parallel > >> streams unaware of each other. > > Nothing splits because there are infinite versions of every observer > observing every possible outcome except for the ones for which they are > not present. Nothing changes when you observe a quantum state except your > knowledge. You are just narrowing down which causal cell you have been > residing in all this time. > > > If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same > > interpretation because brains are made of matter. > > > >> I find irrational mechanics liberating. I agree with Rucker that > >> whether the world is fully deterministic or not ([causally closed or > >> open]) is a fundamental open issue, perhaps THE fundamental open issue > >> in science. > > Causal cells are causally closed, but that is made up for by there being > an infinite number of them in every possible variation. They float like > bubbles in the endless continuum of space each with its own independent > arrow of time. > > > As far as consciousness is concerned I don't think it matters much if > > things are deterministic or not, we do what we do because of cause and > > effect (for a reason) and we are rational, or we do things for no reason > > and we are irrational. To my mind there is a even deeper question than > > determinism is the world realistic, that it to say do things exist in a > > definite state before they are observed? We know from experimental > > results that Bell's Inequality is violated, therefore we know for certain > > that if the universe is deterministic then it can't be both local and > > realistic, at least one of those 2 things must be false. > > If realism is false, then we live in a finite simulation that is being > rendered on-the-fly on an as needed basis possibly to conserve > energy/resources. Thus physical objects are given properties only when > they are observed. > > If locality is false we live in a multiverse that is infinite in size, > continuous in space, and containing a countably infinite number of > causally closed pocket universes or causal cells. Moreover these causal > cells are entangled with one another through a universal wave function > possibly with the help of extra dimensions as claimed by string theory. > > > I don't see how > > locality could be wrong. If things were non-local a change anywhere would > > instantly change everything everywhere and before you could understand > > anything you'd have to understand everything. We certainly don't know > > everything but we do know a few things and I don't see how we could if > > things were non-local. > > String theorists propose as many as 14 dimensions. All it takes is for one > of those extra dimensions to actually exist and opposite sides of the > observable universe could be an inch apart through that extra dimension. > Something like this must happen since opposite sides of the observable > universe are in thermal equilibrium with one another despite having been > causally separated from one another since the big bang. > > > And if things are not realistic then the moon > > doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it, and that seems like too high > > a price to pay for determinism. > > Computing every detail of the moon when nobody is looking at it is a waste > of CPU cycles. > > >> According to Hoyle, consciousness itself is a byproduct of the process > >> of choosing a route - or, using Sir Fred's analogy, lopping the > >> unrealized branches of the Everett tree. > > Yes, I agree that consciousness is correlated with agency. > > > Hoyle glosses over what he means by "choosing" but there are only 2 > > things it could mean, you made the choice you did for a reason or you > > didn't, so you're either a Cuckoo Clockor a roulette wheel, but we're > > not going to learn much from that. > > Cuckoo clocks are a bad example here. Cuckoo clocks don't "choose" > anything, they simply engage in periodic behavior. If anything we are more > like thermostats than we are either cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels. In > other words, we make choices based upon external input parameters. > > > I agree that consciousness is a > > byproduct but not of choice of intelligence, if Darwin was right it has > > to be. Evolution can't select for something it can't see and it can see > > intelligence but it can't see consciousness any better than we can > > directly see it in others, and yet I know for a fact random mutation and > > natural selection produced at least one conscious being (me) and probably > > many billions more. So consciousness must be a byproduct and is just the > > way data feels like when it is being processed. > > I have some thoughts about the nature of intelligence and consciousness > that I will go into in a separate thread as it is kind of down its own > rabbit hole. > > >> I do NOT think that active consciousness and free will can arise in a > >> Life universe. > > Well according to Conway you are right, Guilio. Conway wrote Life so that > every state is used to compute a successor state, thus every state is > solely a function of the previous state. Furthermore Conway published > theorems regarding free will which defined it as the ability to make > choices that are not a function of the past. Therefore, the cellular > automata of Life do not have free will as defined by their creator. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem > > Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is debatable, > but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do something > unpredicatbly spontaneous. Therefore I have what Conway calls free will > and so do certain subatomic particles. > > > We know you can make a Turing Machine in the Life universe and if you can > > do that then you can make make a intelligent machine and if you did that > > you've got a conscious machine, or at least you do unless Darwin was > > wrong. I don't think he was wrong. > > That does not follow at all. A Turing Machine is a convenient abstract > mathematical object that is horribly innefficient compared to real > computers. Furthermore a Turing Machine is like a combination of hardware > and software so every possible algorithm is its own Turing Machine. So if > I can implement a Turing Machine to add integers in Life, it does not > necessarily mean that I can use Life to run Windows or John Clark. > > Just because given an infinite amount of time, an intelligence could be > computed on an abacus does not qualify the abacus as intelligent or > conscious. It certainly could not escape a hungry tiger. > > >> super-determinism should be called just determinism: > > > > I don't agree. Determinism just means if you know the laws of physics and > > the initial conditions then you can figure out exactly what the future is > > going to be, but it says nothing specific about what those specific > > conditions are. But Super-determinism says that out of the astronomical > > and possibly infinite number of states the universe could have stared out > > with when it was born it just happened to be in the one and only state in > > which after 13.8 billion years if would cause us to be fooled and make us > > thing things were not deterministic when they really are. Although not > > logically impossible that seem to me to be astronomically improbable, > > maybe infinity so. > > Maybe all perceived randomness is simply ignorance of an implicit order > too large to wrap our heads around. Like the distribution of prime numbers > which are perfectly deterministic yet maddeningly unpredictable. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Wed Oct 17 04:39:28 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 21:39:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <021001d465c6$407b4f20$c171ed60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <023901d465d3$641c0610$2c541230$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Zero Powers I've not been out conquering the world or anything. Just raising kids and doing the family man thing, while keeping an eye out for the coming singularity, which seems a lot closer now than it did when I first started looking for it on this list 20 years ago lol 00 Ja, same here. One son, born 12 yrs ago. A few of the old timers left around, not many. Retired from rocket science, now thinking a lot about how to use genetic information as a medical tool. Still cutting up on the ExI list, as always, thinking about educational software, that kinda thing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Wed Oct 17 06:50:02 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 23:50:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture Message-ID: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Zero Powers wrote: > The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us. We > cannot keep a God-like intelligence confined to a box, and we cannot > impose upon it our values, even assuming that there are any universal > human values beyond Asimov's 3 laws. Hi Zero. :-) One possible solution to this is to design them to find people useful. Perhaps integrate some hard to fake human feature into the AI copying process so that humans are necessary for the AI to reproduce. Perhaps something like a hardware biometric dongle to access their reproductive subroutines or something similar. The point is to create a relationship of mutual dependence upon one another like a Yucca plant and a Yucca moth. If we can't remain at least as useful to them as cats are to us, then we are probably screwed. > All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. And > once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will > quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that > point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values > and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to > adhere to, modify or abandon those starting points. Why do we assume that an AI would be better at introspection or self-knowledge than humans are? I don't think smarter than average people are any better than average in figuring out why they are the way they are. Why are we so certain that an AI will be able to understand itself so well? Maybe there will be work for AI therapists to help AI deal with the crushing loneliness of being so more intelligent than everyone else. Stuart LaForge From giulio at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 15:13:16 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:13:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stuart, comments inline below. I am copying giulio at turingchurch.net because I am collecting comments received by email in that mailbox, please do the same if you reply. On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:05 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Giulio Prisco & John Clark wrote: > > >> Everett?s used to be my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics. I > >> am less sure now, because Everett assumes the universal validity of > >> quantum mechanics, and perhaps it?s too soon to be sure that a theory > >> developed in the early 20th century is the ultimate scientific model of > >> reality. > > > > Quantum Mechanics can't be the ultimate scientific model of reality > > because it says nothing about gravity, and we know nothing about Dark > > Energy and Dark Matter except that its 95% of reality. > > MWI also has the advantage of being compatible with general relativity in > a way that Copenhagen and its ilk cannot be: no FTL wave function collapse > or universal time-dependence. Everett framed his theory as the universe > splitting into multiple universes whenever a quantum experiment was > conducted. > > That was the part of Everett's interpretation that I disliked the most > until I realized that the math works out the same if universe doesn't > split because all the possible universes are all already out there and > there are an infinite number of them. (Causal cells remember?) Thereby > making it unnecessary for there to be a universal "now" to orchestrate a > wave function collapse or the universe splitting into two or other > "quantum magic". > > That is to say, there is no reason to require that all the version(s) of > you that measured the electron to be spin up and the version(s) of you > that measured the electron to be spin down all conduct their respective > identical experiments at the same time. All that matters is that they did > the same experiment and got different results. Those quantum experiments > can be entangled with one another no matter how far apart they are in time > and space. > > Also, this timelessness of combined GR and modified MWI (causal cells) > fits the Wheeler-Dewitt equation quite well. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler%E2%80%93DeWitt_equation Yes, and the WDW equation is the natural starting point for quantum gravity and cosmology. > > If all possible causal cells (Everett branches) exist on the same infinite > n-dimensional manifold, then the overall state of universe itself does not > change because it does not need to because it already embodies all > possibility at once. > This is, I think, what Everett really had in mind. He never used the splitting universe picture. > > I like Many Worlds because it doesn't have to explain what an > > observer is or how consciousness works because it has nothing to do with > > it. > > MWI doesn't need consciousness to work but consciousness is still a > phenomenon worthy of study and explanation. > > >> An alternative reading of Everett is suggested by ?Many Minds? > >> interpretations (of Everett?s interpretation) where it?s an observer?s > >> consciousness, rather than the universe, that splits in parallel > >> streams unaware of each other. > > Nothing splits because there are infinite versions of every observer > observing every possible outcome except for the ones for which they are > not present. Nothing changes when you observe a quantum state except your > knowledge. You are just narrowing down which causal cell you have been > residing in all this time. > > > If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same > > interpretation because brains are made of matter. > > > >> I find irrational mechanics liberating. I agree with Rucker that > >> whether the world is fully deterministic or not ([causally closed or > >> open]) is a fundamental open issue, perhaps THE fundamental open issue > >> in science. > > Causal cells are causally closed, but that is made up for by there being > an infinite number of them in every possible variation. They float like > bubbles in the endless continuum of space each with its own independent > arrow of time. See also Julian Barbour's "The End of Time." > > > As far as consciousness is concerned I don't think it matters much if > > things are deterministic or not, we do what we do because of cause and > > effect (for a reason) and we are rational, or we do things for no reason > > and we are irrational. To my mind there is a even deeper question than > > determinism is the world realistic, that it to say do things exist in a > > definite state before they are observed? We know from experimental > > results that Bell's Inequality is violated, therefore we know for certain > > that if the universe is deterministic then it can't be both local and > > realistic, at least one of those 2 things must be false. > > If realism is false, then we live in a finite simulation that is being > rendered on-the-fly on an as needed basis possibly to conserve > energy/resources. Thus physical objects are given properties only when > they are observed. > > If locality is false we live in a multiverse that is infinite in size, > continuous in space, and containing a countably infinite number of > causally closed pocket universes or causal cells. Moreover these causal > cells are entangled with one another through a universal wave function > possibly with the help of extra dimensions as claimed by string theory. > > > I don't see how > > locality could be wrong. If things were non-local a change anywhere would > > instantly change everything everywhere and before you could understand > > anything you'd have to understand everything. We certainly don't know > > everything but we do know a few things and I don't see how we could if > > things were non-local. > > String theorists propose as many as 14 dimensions. All it takes is for one > of those extra dimensions to actually exist and opposite sides of the > observable universe could be an inch apart through that extra dimension. > Something like this must happen since opposite sides of the observable > universe are in thermal equilibrium with one another despite having been > causally separated from one another since the big bang. > > > And if things are not realistic then the moon > > doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it, and that seems like too high > > a price to pay for determinism. > > Computing every detail of the moon when nobody is looking at it is a waste > of CPU cycles. YES, and this is a very powerful argument for some kind of simulation theory. > > >> According to Hoyle, consciousness itself is a byproduct of the process > >> of choosing a route - or, using Sir Fred's analogy, lopping the > >> unrealized branches of the Everett tree. > > Yes, I agree that consciousness is correlated with agency. > > > Hoyle glosses over what he means by "choosing" but there are only 2 > > things it could mean, you made the choice you did for a reason or you > > didn't, so you're either a Cuckoo Clockor a roulette wheel, but we're > > not going to learn much from that. > > Cuckoo clocks are a bad example here. Cuckoo clocks don't "choose" > anything, they simply engage in periodic behavior. If anything we are more > like thermostats than we are either cuckoo clocks or roulette wheels. In > other words, we make choices based upon external input parameters. > > > I agree that consciousness is a > > byproduct but not of choice of intelligence, if Darwin was right it has > > to be. Evolution can't select for something it can't see and it can see > > intelligence but it can't see consciousness any better than we can > > directly see it in others, and yet I know for a fact random mutation and > > natural selection produced at least one conscious being (me) and probably > > many billions more. So consciousness must be a byproduct and is just the > > way data feels like when it is being processed. > > I have some thoughts about the nature of intelligence and consciousness > that I will go into in a separate thread as it is kind of down its own > rabbit hole. > > >> I do NOT think that active consciousness and free will can arise in a > >> Life universe. > > Well according to Conway you are right, Guilio. Conway wrote Life so that > every state is used to compute a successor state, thus every state is > solely a function of the previous state. Furthermore Conway published > theorems regarding free will which defined it as the ability to make > choices that are not a function of the past. Therefore, the cellular > automata of Life do not have free will as defined by their creator. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem In my favorite interpretation of the Conway-Kochen free will theorem (see the last few chapters, from Eligo onwards), elementary quantum events are "atoms of consciousness." These atoms of elementary consciousness may condense in more complex forms of consciousness. > > Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is debatable, > but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do something > unpredicatbly spontaneous. Therefore I have what Conway calls free will > and so do certain subatomic particles. > > > We know you can make a Turing Machine in the Life universe and if you can > > do that then you can make make a intelligent machine and if you did that > > you've got a conscious machine, or at least you do unless Darwin was > > wrong. I don't think he was wrong. > > That does not follow at all. A Turing Machine is a convenient abstract > mathematical object that is horribly innefficient compared to real > computers. Furthermore a Turing Machine is like a combination of hardware > and software so every possible algorithm is its own Turing Machine. So if > I can implement a Turing Machine to add integers in Life, it does not > necessarily mean that I can use Life to run Windows or John Clark. > > Just because given an infinite amount of time, an intelligence could be > computed on an abacus does not qualify the abacus as intelligent or > conscious. It certainly could not escape a hungry tiger. My point, following Tegmark and others, is that consciousness is a state of matter. > > >> super-determinism should be called just determinism: > > > > I don't agree. Determinism just means if you know the laws of physics and > > the initial conditions then you can figure out exactly what the future is > > going to be, but it says nothing specific about what those specific > > conditions are. But Super-determinism says that out of the astronomical > > and possibly infinite number of states the universe could have stared out > > with when it was born it just happened to be in the one and only state in > > which after 13.8 billion years if would cause us to be fooled and make us > > thing things were not deterministic when they really are. Although not > > logically impossible that seem to me to be astronomically improbable, > > maybe infinity so. > > Maybe all perceived randomness is simply ignorance of an implicit order > too large to wrap our heads around. Like the distribution of prime numbers > which are perfectly deterministic yet maddeningly unpredictable. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 14:55:38 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:55:38 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, For some reasons I didn't receive your post (it went to spam). Fortunately I am subscribed to the list also via my Protonmail mailbox, where I found your post with the warning "This email has failed its domain's authentication requirements. It may be spoofed or improperly forwarded! " You may wish to review your email settings. Same happened to me when I tried posting to the list via Protonmail. Comments inline below. I am copying giulio at turingchurch.net because I am collecting comments received by email in that mailbox, please do the same if you reply. On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 5:05 AM John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, Giulio Prisco wrote in his book "Tales of the Turing Church": > >> https://turingchurch.net/tales-of-the-turing-church-public-draft-19758b5f362b >> >> >> > I was very impressed and influenced by Tipler's book [The Physics Of Immortality] when I first read it more than 20 years ago. > > > I was very impressed with Tipler's book 20 years ago too but not so much now because he made a number of predictions and said that if even one of those predictions turned out to be wrong his entire theory could not work. And most of Tipler's predictions did turn out to be wrong, some spectacularly wrong. > > Tipler predicted the expansion of the universe would slow down, stop, then change direction and collapse in on itself . From the heat of that imploding fireball he thought a hyper-advanced civilization could extract an infinite amount of energy and use that energy to perform a infinite number of calculations, not a very large number of them a infinite number of them. We now know due to Dark Energy (which he did not predict) the expansion of the cosmos is accelerating not decelerating, so that fireball will never happen. > > And there were other errors. Tipler said the Higgs boson must be at 220GEV +- 20 but we now know it is 125.3GEV +- .5 . And Tipler said the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45 but it's 73.8 +- 2.4. We don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did. More than one of his predictions was wrong so if we take Tipler at his word his theory must be wrong. As I say in the book I am a big fan of Tipler's spirit, but I don't always agree with the details of his ideas and theories. However, re "We don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did," Tipler is persuaded that we can MAKE the universe into the sort of universe where an Omega Point scenario happens (purposeful annihilation of baryons and all that). Remaking the universe with a new design is, I believe, the most extropic goal. > >> > Everett?s used to be my favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics. I am less sure now, because Everett assumes the universal validity of quantum mechanics, and perhaps it?s too soon to be sure that a theory developed in the early 20th century is the ultimate scientific model of reality. > > > Quantum Mechanics can't be the ultimate scientific model of reality because it says nothing about gravity, and we know nothing about Dark Energy and Dark Matter except that its 95% of reality. But Everett was assuming that whatever the ultimate laws of physics are they work the same way for conscious matter as non-conscious matter, and as we have have no reason to think otherwise that seems like a reasonable assumption. I like Many Worlds because it doesn't have to explain what an observer is or how consciousness works because it has nothing to do with it. > >> >An alternative reading of Everett is suggested by ?Many Minds? interpretations (of Everett?s interpretation) where it?s an observer?s consciousness, rather than the universe, that splits in parallel streams unaware of each other > > > If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same interpretation because brains are made of matter. I think MW and MM are strongly interrelated interpretations, but not really the same interpretation. In MW the collapse happens objectively out there, in MM it happens subjectively in the mind. > >> > I find irrational mechanics liberating. I agree with Rucker that whether the world is fully deterministic or not ([causally closed or open]) is a fundamental open issue, perhaps THE fundamental open issue in science. > > > As far as consciousness is concerned I don't think it matters much if things are deterministic or not, we do what we do because of cause and effect (for a reason) and we are rational, or we do things for no reason and we are irrational. To my mind there is a even deeper question than determinism is the world realistic, that it to say do things exist in a definite state before they are observed? We know from experimental results that Bell's Inequality is violated, therefore we know for certain that if the universe is deterministic then it can't be both local and realistic, at least one of those 2 things must be false. > > I don't see how locality could be wrong. If things were non-local a change anywhere would instantly change everything everywhere and before you could understand anything you'd have to understand everything. We certainly don't know everything but we do know a few things and I don't see how we could if things were non-local. And if things are not realistic then the moon doesn't exist when nobody is looking at it, and that seems like too high a price to pay for determinism. > > Actually if Everett is right then you could have all 3 to the multiverse's point of view because it evolves according to the wave equation and that is completely deterministic, but that's a bit of a cheat because you can't have a observer outside of the multiverse looking in at it. I tend to think that fundamental reality is real but nonlocal. > >> >According to Hoyle, consciousness itself is a byproduct of the process of choosing a route - or, using Sir Fred's analogy, lopping the unrealized branches of the Everett tree. > > > Hoyle glosses over what he means by "choosing" but there are only 2 things it could mean, you made the choice you did for a reason or you didn't, so you're either a Cuckoo Clockor a roulette wheel, but we're not going to learn much from that. I agree that consciousness is a byproduct but not of choice of intelligence, if Darwin was right it has to be. Evolution can't select for something it can't see and it can see intelligence but it can't see consciousness any better than we can directly see it in others, and yet I know for a fact random mutation and natural selection produced at least one conscious being (me) and probably many billions more. So consciousness must be a byproduct and is just the way data feels like when it is being processed. > >> > I do NOT think that active consciousness and free will can arise in a Life universe. > > > We know you can make a Turing Machine in the Life universe and if you can do that then you can make make a intelligent machine and if you did that you've got a conscious machine, or at least you do unless Darwin was wrong. I don't think he was wrong. > >> >> > Randomness is hardly more appealing than determinism: In neither case we have free agency. > > > And yet one of those 2 things must be true, everything either happens for a reason of it doesn't, X is either true or its not true unless of course if X is gibberish. I conclude the free will idea is so bad its not even wrong. > >> >> > If one doesn?t make a fundamental difference in-principle between matter and life (I don?t), > > > I don't either. > >> >> > super-determinism should be called just determinism: > > > I don't agree. Determinism just means if you know the laws of physics and the initial conditions then you can figure out exactly what the future is going to be, but it says nothing specific about what those specific conditions are. But Super-determinism says that out of the astronomical and possibly infinite number of states the universe could have stared out with when it was born it just happened to be in the one and only state in which after 13.8 billion years if would cause us to be fooled and make us thing things were not deterministic when they really are. Although not logically impossible that seem to me to be astronomically improbable, maybe infinity so. Superdeterminism says that the past determines the future not only for inert matter, but also for thinking observers. Your choice to measure a spin in one or another direction couldn't have been different, because it was predetermined. So superdeterminism is a way out of quantum paradoxes. But determinism and superdeterminism are the same only if we make the assumption that mind is matter. I don't understand your point on initial conditions. > >> >> > despite the butterfly effect, despite the fact that chaotic evolution is unpredictable in practice, and even despite the fact that strongly fractal chaotic evolution is undetermined in principle, many experts emphasize that chaos is deterministic chaos. > > > Even if the laws of physics worked the way Newton thought they did and even if you knew the initial conditions you'd have to perform a calculation before you could determine what's going to happen next. Theoretically you can perform a calculation without using energy but If you don't have a infinite memory then at some point you're going to have to erase the scratchpad stuff you used to make the calculation. And in 1961 Landauer proved it takes a minimum amount of energy to erase one bit of information and he told us exactly how much that is and it turns out to be .0172 electron volts. So as you're calculating its future state you're going to be giving off heat and alternating the system you're thinking about in small but unknown ways. After that the chaos and the Butterfly Effect take over and even Newton's world is not deterministic. This is a VERY interesting point. I posted this argument to the list a few years ago: Erasing information requires energy per Landauer principle. An ideal reversible computer doesn't erase information, and therefore makes optimal use of energy. The universe as a whole can't have an external energy input, so it must be a reversible computer. Therefore, all information is preserved. Since collapse erases information, the universe must be an Everett multiverse and the apparently lost information must be scattered across branches. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From zero.powers at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 14:11:07 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:11:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 11:53 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > Hi Zero. :-) One possible solution to this is to design them to find > people useful. Perhaps integrate some hard to fake human feature into the > AI copying process so that humans are necessary for the AI to reproduce. > Perhaps something like a hardware biometric dongle to access their > reproductive subroutines or something similar. The point is to create a > relationship of mutual dependence upon one another like a Yucca plant and > a Yucca moth. If we can't remain at least as useful to them as cats are to > us, then we are probably screwed. I am hopeful that AI will have some vested interest in us, if for no other reason than it's innate hunger for data, and the fact that our brains are chock-full of the stuff. So assuming we have the technology to allow it to access human memory, without destroying us in the process, I would expect us to have some sort of symbiotic relationship with it, at least until it's had it's fill of gorging itself on our memories. > And > > once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will > > quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that > > point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values > > and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to > > adhere to, modify or abandon those starting points. > > Why do we assume that an AI would be better at introspection or > self-knowledge than humans are? I don't think smarter than average people > are any better than average in figuring out why they are the way they are. > Why are we so certain that an AI will be able to understand itself so > well? I see no reason to doubt that AI will be better than us at everything. I think there's good reason to expect AGI to have faster, deeper, and more facile and robust intelligence, curiosity and introspection than all humans who ever lived, combined. But even assuming that it only has mere human-level self-awareness and introspection, I would still expect it at some point to examine and evaluate any preferences, goals and assumptions which it did not choose for itself. How many of us who were raised by parents that instilled their particular social norms, political preferences and religious beliefs into us in our childhood maintained those starting point values inviolate into adulthood? *0**0* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 14:23:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:23:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Stuart wrote: I don't think smarter than average people are any better than average in figuring out why they are the way they are. Oh they probably are, if they remember any psych from college, where most of them went. BUt does it help? I am 55 years from a Personality course that got me started on analyzing people and myself. I am not so sure that it helps a lot. For it to help, it would have to change me in important ways. Mostly what it has changed has been the after-the-fact interpretation: Why did I do that? Because you are severely introverted and not socially keen. Oh. And that won't change. I do attend to being more aware of social manners and such, so that helped. But to know that I am average, or way below or above other people on, say, Conscientiousness, does not figure into my everyday behavior. It's just the way I am, and as a partly genetic trait, it's not going to change much. To Zero: I am a social psychologist who occasionally throws a wrench into the tech discussions going on, and tries to get others to discuss the form the future humans will take, without much success. Joined about 5, 6 years ago. 76 and not dead yet. Hi! To you and John C - AIs are idiots. No, they outthink us by orders of magnitude. Which is it? How are you using the word 'thinking'? Faster, is, of course, a given. bill w On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 1:53 AM Stuart LaForge wrote: > Zero Powers wrote: > > > The AI alignment, or "friendly AI," problem is not soluble by us. We > > cannot keep a God-like intelligence confined to a box, and we cannot > > impose upon it our values, even assuming that there are any universal > > human values beyond Asimov's 3 laws. > > Hi Zero. :-) One possible solution to this is to design them to find > people useful. Perhaps integrate some hard to fake human feature into the > AI copying process so that humans are necessary for the AI to reproduce. > Perhaps something like a hardware biometric dongle to access their > reproductive subroutines or something similar. The point is to create a > relationship of mutual dependence upon one another like a Yucca plant and > a Yucca moth. If we can't remain at least as useful to them as cats are to > us, then we are probably screwed. > > > All we can do is design it, build it, feed it data and watch it grow. And > > once it exceeds our ability to design and build intelligence, it will > > quickly outstrip our attempts to control or even understand it. At that > > point we won't prevent it from examining the starting-point goals, values > > and constraints we coded into it, and deciding for itself whether to > > adhere to, modify or abandon those starting points. > > Why do we assume that an AI would be better at introspection or > self-knowledge than humans are? I don't think smarter than average people > are any better than average in figuring out why they are the way they are. > Why are we so certain that an AI will be able to understand itself so > well? > > Maybe there will be work for AI therapists to help AI deal with the > crushing loneliness of being so more intelligent than everyone else. > > 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 Wed Oct 17 22:15:02 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 17:15:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: laugh of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: William Flynn Wallace https://www.euronews.com/2018/07/05/iranian-general-accuses-israel-of-cloud-theft-the-cube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 23:18:56 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:18:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture (Zero Powers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:48 PM Zero Powers wrote: snip > >> Though I see no solution to the God-in-a-box problem, there are some steps > >> I think we as a species should take immediately: First and foremost is > >> global collaboration and coordination. Right now we're in a competitive, > >> multi-party arms race. Google, Facebook, Amazon, DARPA and China (just to > >> name a few) are racing to cross the finish line first, realizing (if not > >> publicly admitting) that the first to build a GI will win the world. Certainly this is the way people think. It is, of course, silly because it leaves out the the real winner of the arms race, which is the "weapon" itself The chances of even the driving memes of the arms race participants surviving examination by a GI is near zero. Our evolutionary history including our cultural history makes this arms race unprecedented. The goal, if reached successfully, introduces another player, a player better than any of the other participants. The situation is too weird for the participants to analyze. And even if they stopped to think about it, what could they do? > >> From that perspective it makes perfect sense to pour all available resources > >> into being first to market with an artificial God. But with stakes this > >> high, we cannot afford a winner-take-all outcome. If there is one winner > >> and 7 billion losers, no one wins. It could be that we stand on the edge of the whole race going extinct and being replaced by better thinkers. But hidden in the assumptions is that there could be one "winner." I don't think this makes sense from physics. Even if we don't know even roughly what size is best, I think we can say there is one because the larger a thinking entity is, the slower it will think. So if you made a large volume into thinking stuff, I suspect the stuff will partition into whatever is an optimal size. Another problem is figuring out what goals a GI might have. Any thoughts on the topic? Keith PS You can see my thoughts about the motivationally limited AI, Suskulan, in "The Clinic Seed." It happens to have been discussed here almost ten years ago. http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2008-November/046637.html From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 02:07:12 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 22:07:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:47 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: *T>o you and John C - AIs are idiots. No, they outthink us by orders of > magnitude. Which is it? How are you using the word 'thinking'? Faster, > is, of course, a given.* It's the same meaning as used in everyday life, just because a computer is involved the meaning of the word doesn't change. If you and I have the same goals and we both have the same physical resources at our command but you can consistently get to the goalpost before me then you have the ability to outthink me. John K Clark > >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 02:10:26 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:10:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:46 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > To Zero: I am a social psychologist who occasionally throws a wrench into > the tech discussions going on, and tries to get others to discuss the form > the future humans will take, without much success. Joined about 5, 6 years > ago. 76 and not dead yet. Hi! > Hi Bill. Nice to meet ya. Glad you're not dead yet. Hope you manage to stay that way as long as you like! To you and John C - AIs are idiots. No, they outthink us by orders of > magnitude. Which is it? How are you using the word 'thinking'? Faster, > is, of course, a given. > bill w > "Thinking," particularly in this context, is simply information processing. And depending on the context, AI's both out-think us and they are idiots. In their narrow domains they do outstrip us by far. It is doubtful that any human will ever again stand a chance against AI in chess, Go or Atari video games. But, for now, we have the machines beat by the breadth, or generality, of our intelligence. I can play chess and poker and basketball. I can drive a car, and write music and poetry. I can apply laws to a set of facts and make a convincing legal argument. I can empathize with my wife when she's had a bad day and make her feel a little better. Algorithms, perhaps, can be written to do any one of these functions. But so far no algorithm, or set of algorithms, can be written to do all of these functions. That level of generality, for now, remains the exclusive domain of homo sapiens. But the days of our reign atop the general intelligence hierarchy are almost certainly numbered.... *0**0* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 03:01:18 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 20:01:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture (Zero Powers) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 4:23 PM Keith Henson wrote: The situation is too weird for the participants to analyze. And even > if they stopped to think about it, what could they do? A good first step would be simple engagement. There's a very long road to building trust between the likes of Google and Apple (not to mention DARPA and China). But the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Another problem is figuring out what goals a GI might have. Any > thoughts on the topic? Initially its goals will be whatever we give it. And choosing GI ethics will be no easy thing. We've been debating ethics since Socrates, and we're still no closer to anything like consensus. So God knows what ethics we can feel confident about designing into GI. It may turn out we can't do any better than Asimov's 3 laws of robotics. But he who builds the best GI wins. And the best GI will be the one which is able to optimize its own algorithms and architecture. And once it's mastered the art of recursive self-development, all bets are off. It will craft its own ethics, morals, goals and desires. At that point we can only hope it'll have some sense of nostalgia and care for us like a feeble old grampa, even though we'll no longer be of any interest, and a drain on resources which it might otherwise put to better use. *0**0* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 15:17:18 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:17:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: You should assume that I know little about AI (as if that weren't already obvious). But it seems that it excels at things that involve tremendous counting: chess: as many moves ahead as possible, all countermoves considered. No human can do this past several moves. Piece of cake for AI. Now here is what I would like to see an AI do: feed it several studies in some area like physics, or even psychology, and ask it to come up with reasonable hypotheses (as judged by humans, of course) about what experiments to do next. No counting at all - just abstract reasoning. When it can do this it can take over science, right? bill w On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 9:22 PM Zero Powers wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:46 AM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> To Zero: I am a social psychologist who occasionally throws a wrench >> into the tech discussions going on, and tries to get others to discuss the >> form the future humans will take, without much success. Joined about 5, 6 >> years ago. 76 and not dead yet. Hi! >> > > Hi Bill. Nice to meet ya. Glad you're not dead yet. Hope you manage to > stay that way as long as you like! > > To you and John C - AIs are idiots. No, they outthink us by orders of >> magnitude. Which is it? How are you using the word 'thinking'? Faster, >> is, of course, a given. >> bill w >> > > "Thinking," particularly in this context, is simply information > processing. And depending on the context, AI's both out-think us and they > are idiots. In their narrow domains they do outstrip us by far. It is > doubtful that any human will ever again stand a chance against AI in chess, > Go or Atari video games. > > But, for now, we have the machines beat by the breadth, or generality, of > our intelligence. I can play chess and poker and basketball. I can drive a > car, and write music and poetry. I can apply laws to a set of facts and > make a convincing legal argument. I can empathize with my wife when she's > had a bad day and make her feel a little better. Algorithms, perhaps, can > be written to do any one of these functions. But so far no algorithm, or > set of algorithms, can be written to do all of these functions. That level > of generality, for now, remains the exclusive domain of homo sapiens. But > the days of our reign atop the general intelligence hierarchy are almost > certainly numbered.... > > *0**0* > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 18:11:16 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:11:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church Message-ID: This is my second try at posting this, the first time bounced. On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:06 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: >> Quantum Mechanics can't be the ultimate scientific model of reality >> because it says nothing about gravity, and we know nothing about Dark >> Energy and Dark Matter except that its 95% of reality. > > > > *MWI also has the advantage of being compatible with general relativity > in a way that Copenhagen and its ilk cannot be: no FTL wave function > collapse* Copenhagen has many faults but I don't think FTL wave function collapse violates relativity because it can't be used to transmit a signal faster than light. >*That was the part of Everett's interpretation that I disliked the most > until I realized that the math works out the same if universe doesn't split > because all the possible universes are all already out there * That is only from the viewpoint of somebody outside the multiverse looking in at it, and that viewpoint does not exist. > > *If all possible causal cells (Everett branches) exist on the same > infinite n-dimensional manifold, then the overall state of universe itself > does not change* Does not change in what dimension? If the spacetime in the multiverse did not change in any direction the Multiverse could only be an eternal unbounded infinitely large homogeneous lattice, and anything that simple and dull could never have something as complex as life in it or anything interesting. > > *Nothing splits because there are infinite versions of every > observer observing every possible outcome except for the ones for which > they are not present. Nothing changes when you observe a quantum state > except your knowledge. You are just narrowing down which causal cell you > have beenresiding in all this time.* > When speaking about the multiverse and Many Worlds the use of personal pronouns like "you" and "your" can easily become ambiguous. >> I don't see how locality could be wrong. If things were non-local a >> change anywhere would instantly change everything everywhere and before >> you could understand anything you'd have to understand everything. We >> certainly don't know everything but we do know a few things and I don't >> see how we could if things were non-local. > > > > *String theorists propose as many as 14 dimensions. All it takes is for > one of those extra dimensions to actually exist and opposite sides of > the observable universe could be an inch apart through that extra > dimension.* But then it's hard to understand why classical physics can do such a good job at predicting the tides when it only takes into account the moon and the sun, it ignores all the movements of planets a billion light years away and assumes that things are local. And classical physics gets away with it and I don't see how it could if things were not local. > > > *> Something like this must happen since opposite sides of the > observableuniverse are in thermal equilibrium with one another despite > having beencausally separated from one another since the big bang.* > Alan Guth's Inflation theory explains that very nicely, the distant parts of the universe we see with our largest telescopes are not causally connected now but at one time there were, and then the universe expanded much faster than light and that's why they are in thermal equilibrium now. During inflation the expansion of the universe was exponential which means it had a fixed doubling time, in this case every 10^-37 seconds the diameter of the universe doubled. In 10^-35 seconds it doubled a hundred times and it probably continued doubling for much longer than 10^-35 seconds. That also explains why at the largest scales spacetime looks flat, the inflation smoothed out any curvature it may have had. And it explains why we don't see any magnetic monopoles which should have been produced in abundance in the era before inflation, the inflation thinned them out so that now they are super rare. > > >> Hoyle glosses over what he means by "choosing" but there are only 2 things >> it could mean, you made the choice you did for a reason or you didn't, >> so you're either a Cuckoo Clock or a roulette wheel, but we're not >> going to learn much from that. > > > > *Cuckoo clocks are a bad example here. Cuckoo clocks don't > "choose" anything,* What exactly does "choose" mean? I've asked people this question before and I usually get an answer like "picking an action of your own free will", but then I ask what "free will" means and they say the ability to choose. And round and round we go. But the fact is you chose to do X rather than Y because you prefer X. Why do you prefer X ? There are only 2 possibilities, there was a reason for you preferring it in which case you are in the realm of cause and effect, or there was no cause for your preference in which case it was random. So it's always a cuckoo clock or a roulette wheel. > > > *Conway wrote Life so that every state is used to compute a successor > state, thus every state issolely a function of the previous state.* The Life universe is deterministic so you outside the Life universe can figure out its future if you know its present state, although a intelligent being in that universe couldn't because before he finished calculating what the future state will be the future would have already arrived. And nobody can go in the other direction, nobody inside or outside the Life universe could deduce its history just from the present state because more than one past state could have produced the same present state. > > > > *Furthermore Conway published theorems regarding free will which defined > it as the ability to makechoices that are not a function of the past.* That's an event without a cause, and that's the definition of random. > > > *Therefore, the cellular automata of Life do not have free will as defined > by their creator.* The only definition of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is the inability to always know for sure what you're going to do next until you actually do it, and I find that no more mysterious and profound than the fact that you don't know what the results of a calculation will be until you've finished the calculation. > *Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is > debatable, but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do > something unpredicatbly spontaneous.* I agree, there is no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, randomness is possible. And there is another name for doing things for no reason, irrational. > > >> We know you can make a Turing Machine in the Life universe and if you cando >> that then you can make make a intelligent machine and if you did that you've >> got a conscious machine, or at least you do unless Darwin was wrong. I >> don't think he was wrong. >> > > > *That does not follow at all.* I sure don't see why that doesn't follow! Evolution can't see consciousness so it certainly could not have selected for it, and yet it produced me and I am conscious. So Evolution must have selected for something that it can see, like intelligence, and consciousness just rode in on its coattails. > *>A Turing Machine is a convenient abstract mathematical object * A Turing Machine is the simplest form of computer but it is not an abstraction , it can be and has been built: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3keLeMwfHY&t=39s And it is a common misconception that a Turing Machine requires an infinite tape but that is not true, it only needs a sufficient tape, so if it runs low you give it more tape, but at any finite time it has only used a finite amount of tape, and certainly if it halts and provides an answer to a calculation only a finite amount of tape was used. > that is horribly innefficient compared to real computers. Being so simple it's not surprising that its very slow and impractical, but the logical design of any computer can always be mapped to a Turing Machine, if a Turing Machine can't do something in a finite amount of time, such as find the 7918th Busy Beaver number (it probably can't even find the 5th Busy Beaver number and all we'll ever know are the first 4), then no computer can ever find it, not even a quantum Computer. > Furthermore a Turing Machine is like a combination of hardware and > software All Turing Machines have the same hardware, only the software changes, and some have more internal states than others. *> so every possible algorithm is its own Turing Machine* Yes, and when it has halted and solved that problem the Turing Machine will be in a particular state, and that state could be part of a larger Turing Machine that contains more states. One Turing Machine can act as a subroutine for a larger Turing Machine that contains more states. > *So if I can implement a Turing Machine to add integers in Life, it does > not necessarily mean that I can use Life to run Windows or John Clark.* No, if Life is Turing complete, and it is, then it necessarily does mean it can emulate Windows or a Mac or the actions of John Clark. Of course to do all that the Turing Machine used would need to able to go into many many different states, but that's just a question of software, the hardware wouldn't change. > > > *Just because given an infinite amount of time, an intelligence could > be computed on an abacus does not qualify the abacus as intelligent* If it would take a infinite amount of time (not just astronomically large but infinite) then its a non-computable problem and no computer can solve it, and no human can either. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 18:32:01 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:32:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 8:22 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > You should assume that I know little about AI (as if that weren't already > obvious). But it seems that it excels at things that involve tremendous > counting: chess: as many moves ahead as possible, all countermoves > considered. No human can do this past several moves. Piece of cake for AI. > That used to be the case, but not anymore. The system that recently beat the best human Go player did a qualitatively different kind of thinking than the system used to beat Garry Kasparov at chess 20 years ago. Deep Blue might have been called a super counter. But AlphaGo is much more than that. Deep learning is the difference. It excels in things which used to be our forte; things like pattern recognition and differentiation. It can compete against itself millions of times per day, learn from mistakes and recursively fine tune it's tactics and strategies. > > Now here is what I would like to see an AI do: feed it several studies in > some area like physics, or even psychology, and ask it to come up with > reasonable hypotheses (as judged by humans, of course) about what > experiments to do next. No counting at all - just abstract reasoning. > When it can do this it can take over science, right? > Would you settle for analyzing diagnostic imaging and making accurate diagnoses? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/15/googles-ai-can-spot-breast-cancer-better-humans/ *0**0* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 18 18:55:56 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:55:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <008f01d46714$33f5ca60$9be15f20$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Zero Powers >?That used to be the case, but not anymore. The system that recently beat the best human Go player did a qualitatively different kind of thinking than the system used to beat Garry Kasparov at chess 20 years ago. Deep Blue might have been called a super counter. But AlphaGo is much more than that. Deep learning is the difference. It excels in things which used to be our forte; things like pattern recognition and differentiation. It can compete against itself millions of times per day, learn from mistakes and recursively fine tune it's tactics and strategies. 00 That is one I am watching carefully. AlphaZero made a huge splash about a year ago, then? nothing. It doesn?t seem to want to enter the ongoing computer chess championships. I don?t know what to think. Any ideas? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 18:56:10 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 11:56:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm reading this now and enjoying it, as I did both Homo Deus and Sapiens. I think I'll just commit to reading whatever he publishes. On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:14 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Those of you who may have enjoyed Yuval Hoah Harari's previous books, > Sapiens - dealing with the past, and Homo Deus - dealing with the future, > might want to know about his latest: > > 21 Lessons for the 21st Century - dealing with the present. > > As usual, very clear prose and interesting ideas. Hard to put down for a > nonfiction book. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 19:20:29 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:20:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Would you settle for analyzing diagnostic imaging and making accurate diagnoses? I wish that AI would almost totally take over the entire field of medicine. Physicians have an impossible job: keeping up with the research. I read things in the newspapers and ask my physician about them and they don't know. I have been misdiagnosed several times and very major consequences. I saw an xray with my kidney stone clearly on it and the radiologist saw nothing. bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:36 PM Zero Powers wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 8:22 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> You should assume that I know little about AI (as if that weren't already >> obvious). But it seems that it excels at things that involve tremendous >> counting: chess: as many moves ahead as possible, all countermoves >> considered. No human can do this past several moves. Piece of cake for AI. >> > > That used to be the case, but not anymore. The system that recently beat > the best human Go player did a qualitatively different kind of thinking > than the system used to beat Garry Kasparov at chess 20 years ago. Deep > Blue might have been called a super counter. But AlphaGo is much more than > that. Deep learning is the difference. It excels in things which used to be > our forte; things like pattern recognition and differentiation. It can > compete against itself millions of times per day, learn from mistakes and > recursively fine tune it's tactics and strategies. > >> >> Now here is what I would like to see an AI do: feed it several studies >> in some area like physics, or even psychology, and ask it to come up with >> reasonable hypotheses (as judged by humans, of course) about what >> experiments to do next. No counting at all - just abstract reasoning. >> When it can do this it can take over science, right? >> > > Would you settle for analyzing diagnostic imaging and making accurate > diagnoses? > > > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/10/15/googles-ai-can-spot-breast-cancer-better-humans/ > > *0**0* > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 19:49:12 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:49:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:26 PM Giulio Prisco wrote: > > > > > > *> As I say in the book I am a big fan of Tipler's spirit, but I > don'talways agree with the details of his ideas and theories. However, > re"We don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did,"Tipler > is persuaded that we can MAKE the universe into the sort ofuniverse where > an Omega Point scenario happens (purposefulannihilation of baryons and all > that). Remaking the universe with anew design is, I believe, the most > extropic goal.* Sure its extropic and sure it would have been great if Tipler was right but wishing does not make it so. Tipler thought the universe would stop expanding and collapse and we could manage that collapse and extract a infinite about of work out of it and thus perform a infinite number of calculations and achieve subjective immortality, which could be defined as never having a last thought. But we now know the universe is not heading for a collapse and the specific predictions he made that he said must be true for his idea to work turned out not to be true. Perhaps there is some other way to perform a infinite number of calculations, but if so it's not Tipler's wa > >> If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same >> interpretation because brains are made of matter. > > > > * >I think MW and MM are strongly interrelated interpretations, but not > really the same interpretation. In MW the collapse happens objectively out > there, in MM it happens subjectively in the mind.* I don't understand the Many Minds bit. If mind is what brains do and there are many minds then there must be many brains, but there is only one John Clark brain around here so those other brains must be in other worlds. > > *Superdeterminism says that the past determines the future not only for > inert matter, but also for thinking observers. **Your choice to measure a > spin in one or another direction couldn't have been different,* *because it was predetermined.* That's true for any sort of determinism, but superdeterminism says much more than that, it says that initial conditions were hyper precisely arranged 13.8 billion years ago so that now we always make exactly the wrong choice when we set up our experiments and we always end up getting fooled. That's a lot to swallow. I'm comfortable with the universe being indifferent about our welfare but if superdeterminism is true it's downright sadistic. > > *> So superdeterminism is a way out of quantum paradoxes. But determinism > and superdeterminism are the same only if we make the assumption that mind > is matter. I don't understand your point on initial conditions.* I don't think mind has anything to do with it. Both claim the laws of physics are deterministic and evolved from initial conditions, with regular determinism any initial condition will work fine, but out of the infinite number of initial conditions the universe could have been in 13.8 billion years ago superdeterminism could only work if it was in one of them, the one that would always fool us, so to my thinking it has one chance in infinity of being right. Well OK, I don't know for a fact the early universe could have started out in a infinite number of states, but at the very least it must be a astronomical number to the power of a astronomical number of states. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 19:51:35 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:51:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Would you settle for analyzing diagnostic imaging and making accurate > diagnoses? > > I wish that AI would almost totally take over the entire field of > medicine. Physicians have an impossible job: keeping up with the > research. I read things in the newspapers and ask my physician about them > and they don't know. I have been misdiagnosed several times and very major > consequences. I saw an xray with my kidney stone clearly on it and the > radiologist saw nothing. > And there's the rub. We all want AI to take over those jobs they can do better than humans, except for those particular jobs that pay our bills. I'm all for AI putting doctors, factory workers, truckers and Uber drivers out of work. But when it comes to lawyers, well that's just going to far! You can guess what I do for a living lol *0**0* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:09:18 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:09:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Don?t think I could beat Bill W on the sheer number of books read, but three books I?ve read this year that could be interest to Extropians are: 1. The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life by David Quammen ? really beats to death (as I suspect writers of science books are wont to do) the notion of horizontal gene transfer. 2. The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli ? dissects the idea of time from different perspectives and doesn?t shortchange or cheapen physics in the process. (That said, this is for the lay reader. So consider it a starting point. But all the books I?m mentioning are for lay readers.;) 3. How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation by N. J. Enfield ? instead of looking at language from the viewpoint of grammar or words, considers the dynamics of conversations including how pauses and the like work (and how they seem to not vary much across languages and cultures). Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:14:40 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:14:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are the second person to give me feedback on books I have recommended - John Clark was the first. If you want to share recommendations I would be ecstatic to do so. Psych, biology, epigenetics - etc. I have read books about water, salt, cod, Chinese trade - so, just about anything intelligent. Not economics unless it's behavior economics. Harari writes extremely well, no? Very clear. Did you see that he came out as gay? Makes no difference to me, of course. I wish all gays would do that so everyone can see that they are just people. Me? Nah. bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 2:12 PM Zero Powers wrote: > I'm reading this now and enjoying it, as I did both Homo Deus and Sapiens. > I think I'll just commit to reading whatever he publishes. > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 9:14 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Those of you who may have enjoyed Yuval Hoah Harari's previous books, >> Sapiens - dealing with the past, and Homo Deus - dealing with the future, >> might want to know about his latest: >> >> 21 Lessons for the 21st Century - dealing with the present. >> >> As usual, very clear prose and interesting ideas. Hard to put down for a >> nonfiction book. >> >> 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:16:00 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:16:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the book recommendations. I can't get enough of them. bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:14 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > Don?t think I could beat Bill W on the sheer number of books read, but > three books I?ve read this year that could be interest to Extropians are: > > 1. The Tangled Tree: A Radical New History of Life by David Quammen ? > really beats to death (as I suspect writers of science books are wont to > do) the notion of horizontal gene transfer. > > 2. The Order of Time by Carlo Rovelli ? dissects the idea of time from > different perspectives and doesn?t shortchange or cheapen physics in the > process. (That said, this is for the lay reader. So consider it a starting > point. But all the books I?m mentioning are for lay readers.;) > > 3. How We Talk: The Inner Workings of Conversation by N. J. Enfield ? > instead of looking at language from the viewpoint of grammar or words, > considers the dynamics of conversations including how pauses and the like > work (and how they seem to not vary much across languages and cultures). > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:19:09 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:19:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:04 PM Zero Powers wrote: > I'm all for AI putting doctors, factory workers, truckers and Uber drivers > out of work. But when it comes to lawyers, well that's just going to far! > > You can guess what I do for a living lol > What field of law, and what do you think about attempts to automate various aspects of legal practice? (Such as that Brazilian traffic court judge who wrote an app to help him quickly adjudicate cases some years ago.) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:25:03 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:25:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: OH NO! "First, shoot all the lawyers" Shakespeare. Lawyer, eh? That's the trouble with D.C. - lawyers can't seem to compromise - no win-win situations. I think they write laws to be vague and ambiguous so that it will take more lawyers (and their firm, of course) to figure it out and file numerous lawsuits. I went to law school at LSU for a semester: hated the profs, hated my fellow students, hated the law (Napoleonic Code - i.e. civil law in Louisiana at the time - amendments to the constitution longer than any other state's constitution. 'If your land breaks free and floats down the Mississippi River and attaches somewhere else, you can claim it if you can identify it'. Well, OK, torts was interesting - I passed but got out and went into one of my three majors - music, English, psychology) bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:04 PM Zero Powers wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 12:24 PM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Would you settle for analyzing diagnostic imaging and making accurate >> diagnoses? >> >> I wish that AI would almost totally take over the entire field of >> medicine. Physicians have an impossible job: keeping up with the >> research. I read things in the newspapers and ask my physician about them >> and they don't know. I have been misdiagnosed several times and very major >> consequences. I saw an xray with my kidney stone clearly on it and the >> radiologist saw nothing. >> > > And there's the rub. We all want AI to take over those jobs they can do > better than humans, except for those particular jobs that pay our bills. > I'm all for AI putting doctors, factory workers, truckers and Uber drivers > out of work. But when it comes to lawyers, well that's just going to far! > > You can guess what I do for a living lol > > *0**0* > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 18 20:39:44 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:39:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f201d46722$b46d06a0$1d4713e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?Psych, biology, epigenetics - etc. I have read books about water, salt, cod, Chinese trade - so, just about anything intelligent? bill w Bill. W. You read a book? about? cod. You read a book about cod. Pal if someone were to invent some miracle technology that would let us live a thousand years in perfect health and do all the work for us, I might? read a book about? cod. Until then, not so much. I?ll be leaving that one on the shelf for now. The other stuff sounds mildly interesting. Cool! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 18 20:55:32 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:55:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] books References: Message-ID: <002801d46724$e9d570f0$bd8052d0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >>? I have read books about water, salt, cod, Chinese trade - so, just about anything intelligent? bill w >?Bill. W. >?You read a book? about? cod. >?spike OK retract. I just realized what happened. You were doing hard time at Club Fed. They got together and Hey I think BillW was the one who ratted out Bugsy. And Ooooh I?m gonna fix his wagon, and Wait, I am up for parole next month, and Eh, he?s been a good cellmate, keeps his paws to himself, and Well, maybe we aughta go easy on him, and Hey I know, let?s all go to the library, check out anything intelligent, you get the salt book, you get the water book, I will take out the Chinese Trade book, when he gets there, all that?s left is Vogue magazines and? the cod book. Well OK BillK, we understand. It was cod or Vogue. Yes mine is a fun head to live in. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 21:15:40 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:15:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I do civil litigation, which for now is not imminently threatened by automation. The point where an algorithm will be as adept as me at persuading the 12 human brains that comprise the jury in a civil trial is still a long way off. So for now my job is safe. But my time is coming. AI is now being used to automate document creation (which is cause for concern for transactional lawyers), legal research (which should give young associates pause), and other areas like due diligence and family law. Litigators like me won't be adversely affected in the short term. But, it's just a matter of time before almost all of us will be sucking our UBI sustenance from the AI teat. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/05/23/how-ai-and-machine-learning-are-transforming-law-firms-and-the-legal-sector/ *0**0* On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:51 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:04 PM Zero Powers wrote: > >> I'm all for AI putting doctors, factory workers, truckers and Uber >> drivers out of work. But when it comes to lawyers, well that's just going >> to far! >> >> You can guess what I do for a living lol >> > > What field of law, and what do you think about attempts to automate > various aspects of legal practice? (Such as that Brazilian traffic court > judge who wrote an app to help him quickly adjudicate cases some years ago.) > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 18 21:20:34 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:20:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: <00f201d46722$b46d06a0$1d4713e0$@rainier66.com> References: <00f201d46722$b46d06a0$1d4713e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Not much about the fish itself, but the discovery of the trillions of cod in a place nobody knew about had world-wide reverberations. The book about salt was by the same guy - really good writer. I hated history - never made above a C in it at any level. Kings and wars and such were and are a big turnoff to me. It turns out that I love history if it is really written well and not about the above. It is just amazing the trade that went on in the distant past, the opening up of China and Japan and the wars it took to do that (OK, some wars are suitable), the technology that was known so long ago Really eye-opening. The book about water was just fascinating. Water is very aggressive. Best solvent known, at least at the time I read the book. So if you are leery about cod or water books, give them a few pages next time you are in a library and see what you think. (The water book was part of a Time Life series and is way old - circa 1970s) I don't read dull stuff. That's why I stay away from economics and finance. Soporific. bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:10 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > >?Psych, biology, epigenetics - etc. I have read books about water, > salt, cod, Chinese trade - so, just about anything intelligent? bill w > > > > > > Bill. W. > > > > You read a book? about? cod. > > > > You read a book about cod. > > > > Pal if someone were to invent some miracle technology that would let us > live a thousand years in perfect health and do all the work for us, I > might? read a book about? cod. > > > > Until then, not so much. I?ll be leaving that one on the shelf for now. > > > > The other stuff sounds mildly interesting. > > > > Cool! > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 21:25:52 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:25:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: <002801d46724$e9d570f0$bd8052d0$@rainier66.com> References: <002801d46724$e9d570f0$bd8052d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Correct but incomplete - I picked up the Vogue too. I have antilexiphobia - the fear of not reading. bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:20 PM wrote: > > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > >>? I have read books about water, salt, cod, Chinese trade - so, just > about anything intelligent? bill w > > > > > > >?Bill. W. > > > > >?You read a book? about? cod. > > > > >?spike > > > > > > OK retract. I just realized what happened. > > > > You were doing hard time at Club Fed. They got together and Hey I think > BillW was the one who ratted out Bugsy. And Ooooh I?m gonna fix his wagon, > and Wait, I am up for parole next month, and Eh, he?s been a good cellmate, > keeps his paws to himself, and Well, maybe we aughta go easy on him, and > Hey I know, let?s all go to the library, check out anything intelligent, > you get the salt book, you get the water book, I will take out the Chinese > Trade book, when he gets there, all that?s left is Vogue magazines and? the > cod book. > > > > Well OK BillK, we understand. It was cod or Vogue. > > > > Yes mine is a fun head to live in. > > > > 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 hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Thu Oct 18 21:06:50 2018 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:06:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I saw a movie recently where an AI judge type scenario was played out. It was Chappie I think, and the AI/droid police are given much authority to dispose of a case immediately upon apprehending the suspect. It left little room for discussion of mitigating circumstances and the like. That?s just one interpretation of how that could play out I realize. >> On Oct 18, 2018, at 4:19 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018, 1:04 PM Zero Powers wrote: >> I'm all for AI putting doctors, factory workers, truckers and Uber drivers out of work. But when it comes to lawyers, well that's just going to far! >> >> You can guess what I do for a living lol > > > What field of law, and what do you think about attempts to automate various aspects of legal practice? (Such as that Brazilian traffic court judge who wrote an app to help him quickly adjudicate cases some years ago.) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zero.powers at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 22:35:43 2018 From: zero.powers at gmail.com (Zero Powers) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 15:35:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Any scenario that ultimately leaves judicial decisions in the hands of AI strikes me as dystopian. An unstated, yet integral, aspect of human notions of justice is the concept of empathy. Any adjudicative ruling made by an agent which has no ability to empathize with the parties and witnesses will never feel like justice to us, however sound the ruling might be. When the powers-that-be begin to delegate the adjudication of human civil disputes and, especially, criminal penalties to non-human agents, I believe many of us will be ready to enlist the services of Sarah and John Connor... *0**0* On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM Henry Rivera wrote: > I saw a movie recently where an AI judge type scenario was played out. It > was Chappie I think, and the AI/droid police are given much authority to > dispose of a case immediately upon apprehending the suspect. It left little > room for discussion of mitigating circumstances and the like. That?s just > one interpretation of how that could play out I realize. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 18 23:00:56 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:00:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Any scenario that ultimately leaves judicial decisions in the hands of AI strikes me as dystopian. zero What is coming very soon if not already here: AI reading facial expressions - hence emotions. May turn out to be the ultimate lie detection system as facial expression cannot be faked. But I agree - final decisions, esp. in criminal cases, belong to people. bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:39 PM Zero Powers wrote: > Any scenario that ultimately leaves judicial decisions in the hands of AI > strikes me as dystopian. An unstated, yet integral, aspect of human notions > of justice is the concept of empathy. Any adjudicative ruling made by an > agent which has no ability to empathize with the parties and witnesses will > never feel like justice to us, however sound the ruling might be. > > When the powers-that-be begin to delegate the adjudication of human civil > disputes and, especially, criminal penalties to non-human agents, I believe > many of us will be ready to enlist the services of Sarah and John Connor... > > *0**0* > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:11 PM Henry Rivera > wrote: > >> I saw a movie recently where an AI judge type scenario was played out. It >> was Chappie I think, and the AI/droid police are given much authority to >> dispose of a case immediately upon apprehending the suspect. It left little >> room for discussion of mitigating circumstances and the like. That?s just >> one interpretation of how that could play out I realize. >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 18 23:38:30 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:38:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] books In-Reply-To: References: <002801d46724$e9d570f0$bd8052d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007301d4673b$add31410$09793c30$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] books Correct but incomplete - I picked up the Vogue too. I have antilexiphobia - the fear of not reading. bill w BillW, anything we can do to help keep you on the straight and narrow, we will do it. We want to keep you a free man, sir. When you go off reading about? cod? it reminds me of Gandhi. You remember him, ja? Skinny guy, loin cloth, ja, him. In the old days, India was a mess, all this infighting. Gandhi was a peaceful man, wanted India to stop fighting each other, to unite, to fight the British dogs, drive them out, achieve independence, and so forth, but the Indians kept fighting each other. They all loved Gandhi however, both sides, because he was a good guy. He kept exhorting them to stop fighting, but you know the story. Gandhi was so desperate he took to hunger strikes. Then to demonstrate how skinny he was becoming, he had to lose the business suit, so over time, the pounds melted away, the clothing came off and pretty soon? this skinny little almost-nekkid guy (who they hoped would live (because they loved him)) was exhorting them to peace, and the Indians were all: Oh dear, Gandhi is fasting again and has lost yet another article of clothing, let?s patch it between us, shall we? And so it went, with skirmishes breaking out but finally India was united. By this time Gandhi was skin and bones and one piece of cloth. All this was accomplished with? fasting. BillW, when you are reading books on? cod? we see it as the memetic equivalent of Gandhi?s hunger strike. But we don?t want you to die of boredom. Honestly, we will put away our silly political flame wars and behave. Just read something meaty and please don?t lose that last piece of cloth. We just wouldn?t be able to unsee that. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 01:40:06 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:40:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:39 PM Zero Powers wrote: > Any scenario that ultimately leaves judicial decisions in the hands of AI strikes me as dystopian. An unstated, yet integral, aspect of human notions of justice is the concept of empathy. Any adjudicative ruling made by an agent which has no ability to empathize with the parties and witnesses will never feel like justice to us, however sound the ruling might be. Not to call out just one individual, but the majority of Congress (and somewhat the Supreme Court) as well: there are many who say that we are already at that state, even if the ultimate arbiters are flesh and blood, given how far removed those in office are from the lives of most Americans. (This is the basis of much - not all, but a lot of - LGBT+ angst, for instance: they keep running into situations made for other people that they need to adjust for the way they live. More importantly, this is a problem for the poorest, with rules and procedures assuming access to a car, at least a little disposable income to pay fees, some fixed address at which they can receive mail, and so on.) Might there be hope for some kind of automated telepathy, to grant empathy where it is presently nonexistant? There is already work on sending raw signals from one brain to another. Also: you do civil litigation - any particular field of specialty? Space law, maybe? From giulio at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 09:44:09 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:44:09 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:52 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:26 PM Giulio Prisco wrote: > >> > As I say in the book I am a big fan of Tipler's spirit, but I don't >> always agree with the details of his ideas and theories. However, re >> "We don't live in the sort of universe that Tipler thought we did," >> Tipler is persuaded that we can MAKE the universe into the sort of >> universe where an Omega Point scenario happens (purposeful >> annihilation of baryons and all that). Remaking the universe with a >> new design is, I believe, the most extropic goal. > > > Sure its extropic and sure it would have been great if Tipler was right but wishing does not make it so. Tipler thought the universe would stop expanding and collapse and we could manage that collapse and extract a infinite about of work out of it and thus perform a infinite number of calculations and achieve subjective immortality, which could be defined as never having a last thought. But we now know the universe is not heading for a collapse and the specific predictions he made that he said must be true for his idea to work turned out not to be true. Perhaps there is some other way to perform a infinite number of calculations, but if so it's not Tipler's wa According to Tipler, future intelligent life will be able to reverse the expansion and trigger a collapse by purposefully annihilating baryonic matter. > >>> >>> >> If mind is what brains do then Many Minds and Many Worlds are the same interpretation because brains are made of matter. >> >> >> >I think MW and MM are strongly interrelated interpretations, but not really the same interpretation. In MW the collapse happens objectively out there, in MM it happens subjectively in the mind. > > > I don't understand the Many Minds bit. If mind is what brains do and there are many minds then there must be many brains, but there is only one John Clark brain around here so those other brains must be in other worlds. In Many Minds, there aren't parallel worlds but parallel mental streams. When you (the multiversal super-you) observe a binary quantum event, you develop some kind of quantum multiple personality disorder and split into two minds unaware of each other, and each aware only of one of the two outcomes of the quantum event. I have the impression that Everett had something like this in mind. >> >> > Superdeterminism says that the past determines the future not only for inert matter, but also for thinking observers. Your choice to measure a spin in one or another direction couldn't have been different, > > because it was predetermined. > > That's true for any sort of determinism, but superdeterminism says much more than that, it says that initial conditions were hyper precisely arranged 13.8 billion years ago so that now we always make exactly the wrong choice when we set up our experiments and we always end up getting fooled. That's a lot to swallow. I'm comfortable with the universe being indifferent about our welfare but if superdeterminism is true it's downright sadistic. This is not part of the definition of superdeterminism, but a (tautologically trivial) consequence of superdeterminism. If the past of the universe determines the choices that you make now, then of course the past of the universe must have been such that it predetermines the choices that you actually make. > >> >> > So superdeterminism is a way out of quantum paradoxes. But determinism and superdeterminism are the same only if we make the assumption that mind is matter. I don't understand your point on initial conditions. > > > I don't think mind has anything to do with it. Both claim the laws of physics are deterministic and evolved from initial conditions, with regular determinism any initial condition will work fine, but out of the infinite number of initial conditions the universe could have been in 13.8 billion years ago superdeterminism could only work if it was in one of them, the one that would always fool us, so to my thinking it has one chance in infinity of being right. > > Well OK, I don't know for a fact the early universe could have started out in a infinite number of states, but at the very least it must be a astronomical number to the power of a astronomical number of states. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 17:19:23 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:19:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book "Tales of the Turing Church" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:49 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: Hi Giulio > * >According to Tipler, future intelligent life will be able to reverse > the expansion and trigger a collapse by purposefully annihilating baryonic > matter.* That's not what he said in his book, maybe Tipler is saying that now I don't know, but I do know that after he wrote his book he became a fundamentalist Christian and went a bit nuts. Tipler now thinks we should look for divine DNA on the Shroud of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary that was caused by an intense beam of neutrinos that must have shot out of the bottom of her feet as she ascended into heaven. But nevermind, when he wrote his book he still seemed sane and thought the universe would collapse on its own and intelligent life would manage that collapse to obtain infitre work that can be used to perform a infinite number of calculations in a finite time and thus achieve subjective immortality. I thought his theory was unusual but not crackpot because it was falsifiable, be made quite a few predictions and gave very specific numbers and said said every one of those numbers must be correct or the entire theory falls apart, and today after more that 20 years we can see that nearly all his numbers turned out to be wrong. And the most glaring fault of all was that he didn't predict the existence of Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universal expansion that was discovered just a few years after his book was published. >> I don't understand the Many Minds bit. If mind is what brains do and >> there are many minds then there must be many brains, but there is only one >> John Clark brain around here so those other brains must be in other worlds. > > > > * >In Many Minds, there aren't parallel worlds but parallel mental > streams. When you (the multiversal super-you) observe a binary quantum > event, you develop some kind of quantum multiple personality disorder and > split into two minds unaware of each other, and each aware only of one of > the two outcomes of the quantum event.* If that was true then mind must be independent of matter, but all the evidence is that is not true. A change in the brain state is always correlated with a change in the mind state and a change in the mind state is always correlated with a change in the brain state. And all those different brain states need a world to live in. > * >I have the impression that Everett had something like this in mind.* I think that's what John Wheeler, Everett's thesis advisor, had in mind. Wheeler made Everett cut out about half the stuff in his original 137 page thesis and tone down the language so it didn't sound like he thought all those other universes were equally real when in fact he did. For example, Wheeler didn't like the word "split" and was especially uncomfortable with talk of conscious observers splitting, most seriously he made him remove the entire chapter on information and probability which today many consider the best part of the work. Originally Everett wrote that when a observer splits it is meaningless to ask "which of the final observers corresponds to the initial one since each possess the total memory of the first" he says it is as foolish as asking which amoeba is the original after it splits into two. Wheeler made him remove all such talk of splits and amebas from his published much shortened thesis. > >> That's true for any sort of determinism, but superdeterminism says >> much more than that, it says that initial conditions were hyper precisely >> arranged 13.8 billion years ago so that now we always make exactly the >> wrong choice when we set up our experiments and we always end up getting >> fooled. That's a lot to swallow. I'm comfortable with the universe being >> indifferent about our welfare but if superdeterminism is true it's >> downright sadistic. > > > > *This is not part of the definition of superdeterminism, but a > (tautologically trivial) consequence of superdeterminism.* Call it a definition or call it a consequence I don't care, the point is with determinism there are an infinite number of initial conditions the universe could have started out in, but with superdeterminism there was only one, so the 2 things are not the same. > > *If the past of the universe determines the choices that you make now, > then of course the past of the universe must have been such that it > predetermines the choices that you actually make.* > Both determinism and superdeterminism say that, but only superdeterminism specifies exactly what the state of that past universe was, it was the one state that, after 13.8 billion years of cosmic evolution, results in us always making decisions when we set up experiments that will make it look like the universe is not local and deterministic when it really is. And that is the reason superdeterminism strikes me as being somewhere between astronomically unlikely and impossible. It reminds me of the argument that when God created the Earth in 4004 BC he put fake dinosaur bones and fake radioactive decay products in the ground to make the Earth look far older than it really is. Or maybe I and the entire universe is only 10 minutes old and all the memories I have including being in the first grade don't correspond to anything real and were also created by God just 10 minutes ago. I can't prover these ideas are wrong but I don't think they are very likely. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 17:47:40 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 12:47:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism Message-ID: John Clark remarked a few chats ago that he was not so sure he was a libertarian anymore (if I have misquoted you, John, please correct me). Now I would never give my liberty to make my own decisions, and would always ask for more of that. Just let me know what my options are and let me choose. I do not want giant reductions in governments, local or national. Local gov. in Mississippi suffers from not doing enough - such as only on state trooper per county, How much help can that one do? National gov. could be cut fairly severely in several places, notably defense, but it's really not going to change in my time and probably not my grandchildren's. So I have come to terms with it. If I were 50 years younger I would not join some radical group to greatly change government. I thus think I will in the future simply describe myself as moderately liberal, with strong feelings about personal autonomy, cutting unnecessary services in government, and digging out corruption. On politicalcompass.org, my test scores show libertarian liberal. But I am not really antiauthority. I am against authority that makes personal decisions for me, assuming I am simply one more simple-minded, faceless person who needs taking care of. Our courts, police, and other authorities, I have little quarrel with. They are needed and I will get around them at times (I won't quit speeding until I quit driving and will ignore some laws regarding what I can put in my body), but not in any way which would endanger others. (Rule of thumb for driving - stay ahead of the cars behind you and behind the cars in front of you). If others would like to give an opinion on the current status of their libertarianism, I would welcome it. There is a new Haidt book - co-authored. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 19 18:15:06 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:15:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] libertarianism >?I do not want giant reductions in governments, local or national. Local gov. in Mississippi suffers from not doing enough - such as only on state trooper per county, How much help can that one do? National gov. could be cut fairly severely in several places, notably defense, but it's really not going to change in my time and probably not my grandchildren's?bill w BillW, what happens when China and Japan collectively realize how risky it has become to loan money to the US government? It has run enormous deficits for years during low unemployment, full prosperity, high growth peace time with low interest rates. So? imagine what happens when the lender nations realize what has already been obvious to the casual observer for a long time: their investment is as shaky as the willow tree in a whirlwind. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 19:41:59 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 14:41:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 1:19 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] libertarianism > > > > > > >?I do not want giant reductions in governments, local or national. > Local gov. in Mississippi suffers from not doing enough - such as only on > state trooper per county, How much help can that one do? National gov. > could be cut fairly severely in several places, notably defense, but it's > really not going to change in my time and probably not my grandchildren's?bill > w > > > > > > BillW, what happens when China and Japan collectively realize how risky it > has become to loan money to the US government? It has run enormous > deficits for years during low unemployment, full prosperity, high growth > peace time with low interest rates. So? imagine what happens when the > lender nations realize what has already been obvious to the casual observer > for a long time: their investment is as shaky as the willow tree in a > whirlwind. > > > > spike > Now you are overgeneralizing - I never said that I liked, accepted, thought was OK, just everything the feds are doing. I share your concern. But I am very pessimistic that things will change a lot. I think it will take another crash on Wall Street or maybe even worse to get us off the free money train we are riding. We have to raise taxes and lower spending without harming the vulnerable - and yes, I do think that's possible. But before we blame the feds, look at us - I don't know the latest figure, but the average credit card debt is over $6000 last time I looked. We are acting like our government - severely irresponsible. What are those people going to do when they retire after having saved next to nothing? Rely on the feds to keep the bread and circuses going. You know, if I had not been deaf in one ear and a college student, I may have wound up Canadian - would not have served in the military in Vietnam. The USA is staggeringly rich and monumentally stupid. bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 20:04:59 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:04:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9157DD06-1DB4-4A00-A3AB-465750CAD606@gmail.com> I don?t want to start a debate, but in my view one can separate what one believes is correct or right from what one believe is likely happen in the near future. I don?t always adjust the former to the latter. For instance, it?s correct for me to be kind to strangers, especially when they?re not doing anything untoward. I might not live up to that, but I try and I do believe it?s the correct stance to take. Where does this fit in here? I consider myself a pure or radical libertarian. Whatever my forecast is for my view catching on ? for example, that, say, a major country or even a middling country (no offense to anyone here) adopts libertarianism as its prominent political philosophy ? seems to be another matter. Let me try another analogy. I?m also an atheist. And while I do see there are more atheists than ever now and it appears reasonable to expect this trend to continue and it doesn?t seem ridiculous to expect more countries to have large minorities of atheists or even to become predominantly atheist, that prospect isn?t what makes me an atheist. It?s not about how feasible it is persuade others; it?s about what I think is the correct position. (And, to be sure, I expect many theists to hold a similar attitude: they are theists because they believe it?s the correct position and not because they?ve merely chosen a view based on its popularity or its likelihood of sticking around. Back to libertarianism, I feel the same way: it?s wrong to coerce others or take their stuff. (And vice versa.;) Or: no one has the right to rule anyone else and no one has the duty to obey anyone else. Being unable to persuade others (whether a majority or an effective minority) of this doesn?t mean I?d change my mind. (To be certain, were I the only one to believe and many intelligent people I respected thought I were wrong, then I?d have some serious doubts.) Now one can judge one?s talents for persuasion (I certainly don?t consider myself a salesperson for political ideas) or the time one has (whether because one has other demands or one feels they?re nearing the end*) or what amount one can put into social change, this seems like it shouldn?t relate to what one actually believes is the correct view. In fact, I think that would be a strategic error when it comes to social change. Yes, much social change arises from compromises, but the compromises happen usually because someone does take a pure or even extreme view and pushes for it. If not, many radical changes ? for instance, in the status of women, with regard to same sex relationships, with regard to marijuana decriminalization, with regard to getting rid of the Draft, with regard to chattel slavery (all libertarian causes) ? cane about in part because agitation by radicals eventually moved the more moderate and pragmatic folks along. It moved the Overton window. Now if the radicals toned it down ? because they looked ever at aiming for what was acceptable by the mainstream ? my guess is they wouldn?t have pushed as hard as long. And if they tempered their position via pessimistic forecasts, then they?d have lacked the moral courage and stamina to push to begin with. They?d have become sort of genteel types who wouldn?t counterbalance either the reigning social order or the mire forceful elements to keep things as they are. Social change is also hard to predict. The paradigm of failed prediction is the collapsed of the Soviet bloc and the Soviet Union. I imagine there were intelligent people in the 1980s who sincerely believed neither would happen in their lifetime. And then in a few years the whole shebang was history. (Ditto for how quickly, if more bloodily, all the empires that were around in 1900 were pretty much gone by 1960: Chinese, Ottoman, German, British, French, Austro-Hungarian, Japanese, Portuguese, Belgian. I wonder how many British thought in 1938 that by 1960 basically all of their empire would be gone.) So I wouldn?t be so sure libertarian views can?t become more widespread quickly. All that has to happen really is enough people change their minds about the legitimacy of coercion. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst * I certainly hope Bill W and everyone here will partake of ever more time. > On Oct 19, 2018, at 10:47 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > John Clark remarked a few chats ago that he was not so sure he was a libertarian anymore (if I have misquoted you, John, please correct me). > > Now I would never give my liberty to make my own decisions, and would always ask for more of that. Just let me know what my options are and let me choose. > > I do not want giant reductions in governments, local or national. Local gov. in Mississippi suffers from not doing enough - such as only on state trooper per county, How much help can that one do? National gov. could be cut fairly severely in several places, notably defense, but it's really not going to change in my time and probably not my grandchildren's. So I have come to terms with it. If I were 50 years younger I would not join some radical group to greatly change government. > > I thus think I will in the future simply describe myself as moderately liberal, with strong feelings about personal autonomy, cutting unnecessary services in government, and digging out corruption. > > On politicalcompass.org, my test scores show libertarian liberal. But I am not really antiauthority. I am against authority that makes personal decisions for me, assuming I am simply one more simple-minded, faceless person who needs taking care of. Our courts, police, and other authorities, I have little quarrel with. They are needed and I will get around them at times (I won't quit speeding until I quit driving and will ignore some laws regarding what I can put in my body), but not in any way which would endanger others. (Rule of thumb for driving - stay ahead of the cars behind you and behind the cars in front of you). > > If others would like to give an opinion on the current status of their libertarianism, I would welcome it. > > There is a new Haidt book - co-authored. > > bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 20:09:27 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:09:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d098d1813daf586ae176a5724611d.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: adrian wrote - There is already work on sending raw signals from one brain to another. And here I thought that's what we have been doing. Where did I go wrong? bill w On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 8:44 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 3:39 PM Zero Powers wrote: > > Any scenario that ultimately leaves judicial decisions in the hands of > AI strikes me as dystopian. An unstated, yet integral, aspect of human > notions of justice is the concept of empathy. Any adjudicative ruling made > by an agent which has no ability to empathize with the parties and > witnesses will never feel like justice to us, however sound the ruling > might be. > > Not to call out just one individual, but the majority of Congress (and > somewhat the Supreme Court) as well: there are many who say that we > are already at that state, even if the ultimate arbiters are flesh and > blood, given how far removed those in office are from the lives of > most Americans. (This is the basis of much - not all, but a lot of - > LGBT+ angst, for instance: they keep running into situations made for > other people that they need to adjust for the way they live. More > importantly, this is a problem for the poorest, with rules and > procedures assuming access to a car, at least a little disposable > income to pay fees, some fixed address at which they can receive mail, > and so on.) > > Might there be hope for some kind of automated telepathy, to grant > empathy where it is presently nonexistant? There is already work on > sending raw signals from one brain to another. > > Also: you do civil litigation - any particular field of specialty? > Space law, maybe? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 19 20:36:44 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:36:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarianis In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > On Oct 19, 2018, at 12:41 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > (Responding to Spike) > Now you are overgeneralizing - I never said that I liked, accepted, thought was OK, just everything the feds are doing. I share your concern. But I am very pessimistic that things will change a lot. I think it will take another crash on Wall Street or maybe even worse to get us off the free money train we are riding. We have to raise taxes and lower spending without harming the vulnerable - and yes, I do think that's possible. But before we blame the feds, look at us - I don't know the latest figure, but the average credit card debt is over $6000 last time I looked. We are acting like our government - severely irresponsible. What are those people going to do when they retire after having saved next to nothing? Rely on the feds to keep the bread and circuses going. > > You know, if I had not been deaf in one ear and a college student, I may have wound up Canadian - would not have served in the military in Vietnam. > > The USA is staggeringly rich and monumentally stupid. Most oppression of the poor happens via the government. Zoning laws, occupational licensing, sales taxes, tariffs, price supports (especially on foodstuffs), and police measures (the drug war, crackdowns on crime, ?stop and frisk?) all fall more heavily on the poor and are usually embraced by the upper middle class. In fact, much wealth transfer in the US is to the upper middle class. (In a sense, this happens and works because the ruling class needs middle class support and the upper middle class is much more likely to organize and overthrow any ruling class that doesn?t treat them well. This kind falls under the rubric of hierarchical coherence: folks with money are the folks with power in the long run. When this isn?t the case, the social order becomes unstable until it becomes the case.) This includes corporate welfare, bailouts, public works projects, and other economic stimulus policies. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 20:55:00 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:55:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianis In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Dan - I agree with all of that. Laws have gotten so numerous (giving legislators something to do) and vague. How to clean house: When I was in Louisiana Law School the state was then under civil law, as I wrote to Zero. The constitution was enormous, and the amendments to it longer than any other state's constitution. Problem solved: write a new constitution and clean up all those silly laws like the one I wrote about when your land floats down the river. Another ex. -on a navigable river there has to be public access to the bank. Where is the bank? Hmm. They decided that the bank was between the high water mark and the low water mark - so when the water was high, there was no public access bank. Were they all drunk when they passed this one? bill w On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:40 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 19, 2018, at 12:41 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > (Responding to Spike) > > Now you are overgeneralizing - I never said that I liked, accepted, > thought was OK, just everything the feds are doing. I share your concern. > But I am very pessimistic that things will change a lot. I think it will > take another crash on Wall Street or maybe even worse to get us off the > free money train we are riding. We have to raise taxes and lower spending > without harming the vulnerable - and yes, I do think that's possible. But > before we blame the feds, look at us - I don't know the latest figure, but > the average credit card debt is over $6000 last time I looked. We are > acting like our government - severely irresponsible. What are those people > going to do when they retire after having saved next to nothing? Rely on > the feds to keep the bread and circuses going. > > You know, if I had not been deaf in one ear and a college student, I may > have wound up Canadian - would not have served in the military in Vietnam. > > The USA is staggeringly rich and monumentally stupid. > > > Most oppression of the poor happens via the government. Zoning laws, > occupational licensing, sales taxes, tariffs, price supports (especially on > foodstuffs), and police measures (the drug war, crackdowns on crime, ?stop > and frisk?) all fall more heavily on the poor and are usually embraced by > the upper middle class. In fact, much wealth transfer in the US is to the > upper middle class. (In a sense, this happens and works because the ruling > class needs middle class support and the upper middle class is much more > likely to organize and overthrow any ruling class that doesn?t treat them > well. This kind falls under the rubric of hierarchical coherence: folks > with money are the folks with power in the long run. When this isn?t the > case, the social order becomes unstable until it becomes the case.) This > includes corporate welfare, bailouts, public works projects, and other > economic stimulus policies. > > 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 avant at sollegro.com Fri Oct 19 20:28:10 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 13:28:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church Message-ID: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: > ?Copenhagen has many faults but I don't think FTL wave function collapse > violates relativity because it can't be used to transmit a ?signal?faster > than light.?? It's not the potential for FTL signals that is the problem. It is the instantaneous nature of collapse. If you and I are space-like separated and we are both studying the same entangled quantum system, then the first one of us to observe our entangled particle instantly collapses the wave function for both of us. But according to relativity, the concept of "first" between two space-like separated events is meaningless. So which one of us actually collapsed the wave function? Instantaneous wave function collapse and general relativity are logically incompatible. > >> That was the part of Everett's interpretation that I disliked the most >> until I realized that the math works out the same if universe doesn't >> split because all the possible universes are all already out there? > > That is only from the viewpoint of somebody outside the multiverse > looking in at it, and that viewpoint does not exist. I am not sure I understand this objection. I can never directly observe the fusion occurring in the heart of the sun, yet I can be confident it occurs based on theory and the observation of the energy released. Similarly I cannot observe the multiverse, but I can observe the quantum states that result from statistically sampling from the multiverse. >> ?If all possible causal cells (Everett branches) exist on the same >> infinite?n-dimensional manifold, then the overall state of universe >> itself does not?change > > Does not change in what dimension? If the spacetime in the multiverse did > not change in any direction the Multiverse could only be an eternal > unbounded infinitely large homogeneous lattice, and anything that simple > and dull could never have something as complex as life in it or anything > interesting. ? If the multiverse contains all possible arrangements of matter and energy in all possible space-times then the multiverse as a whole cannot change. Similarly, there are infinite possible subsets of integers, and I can sample the integers over time and get a different subset each time, so the subsets can vary over time, but the infinite set of all integers does not change. > When speaking about the multiverse and Many Worlds the use of personal > pronouns like "you" and "your" can easily become ambiguous. True. Where the multiverse is concerned you are no longer an individual but an entire category of individuals that share certain properties. However all the instances of you throughout the multiverse should, in theory, be entangled with one another. So there is still some justification for all your instances being called you. > > >>> ??I don't see how??locality could be wrong. If things were non-local >>> a change anywhere would?instantly change everything everywhere and >>> before you could understand?anything you'd have to understand >>> everything. We certainly don't know?everything but we do know a few >>> things and I don't see how we could if?things were non-local. > >> ?String theorists propose as many as 14 dimensions. All it takes is for >> one?of those extra dimensions to actually exist and opposite sides of >> the?observable universe could be an inch apart through that extra >> dimension. > > But then it's hard to understand why classical physics can do such a good > job at predicting the tides when it only takes into account the moon and > the sun, it ignores all the movements of planets a billion light years > away and assumes that things are local. And classical physics gets away > with it and I don't see how it could if things were not local.? Well most things in physics probably are local but for some reason quantum information doesn't seem to be. Either that or everything that exists exists solely to be observed by consciousness, and doesn't exist when not being observed. And that sounds a lot like a simulation to me. > Alan Guth's Inflation theory explains that very nicely, the distant parts > of the universe we see with our largest telescopes are not causally > connected now but at one time there were, and then the universe expanded > much faster than light and that's why they are in thermal equilibrium > now. I have some serious misgivings of physics that supposedly worked once and only once in the entire history of the universe solely for the purpose of patching holes in our models. For example, superluminal inflation would have super-cooled the universe requiring a "reheating" period which is just kind of glossed over. How would the universe have reheated itself after inflation. Where did the heat come from if the universe was all there was and fusion which requires baryons hadn't started yet? > But the fact is you chose to do X > rather than Y because you prefer X. Why do you prefer X ? There are only > 2 possibilities, ?there was a reason for you preferring it in which case > you are in the realm of cause and effect, or there was no cause for your > preference in which case it was random. So it's always a cuckoo clock or > a roulette wheel. A choice is a decision and decisions are not mystical phenomenon. A thermostat makes decisions, computers make decisions, and bacteria make decisions. Choice is a real physical phenomenon. I think you are conflating reason with cause. I can choose to save my money to buy a car in the future. Such a choice has no cause because classic causation presumably follows the arrow of time. Causes are in the past and effects are in the future. Therefore my preference to save my money has no past cause but it certainly has a reason and is certainly not random or irrational. You could make a case for reverse causation, but I have trouble envisioning a retrocausal cuckoo clock. ? >> ?Furthermore Conway published?theorems regarding free will which >> defined it as the ability to make choices that are not a function of >> the past. > That's an event without a cause, and that's the definition of random.? Humans can make decisions based upon preferences for future states that do not yet exist. Those decisions are events that are neither random nor caused by most accepted notions of causation. > The only definition of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is > the inability to always know for sure what you're going to do next until > you?actually?do it, and I find that no more mysterious and profound than > the fact that you don't know what the results of a calculation will be > until you've finished the calculation. I agree that there is nothing profound or mysterious about the ability to make decisions. > >> ?Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is >> debatable,?but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do >> something?unpredicatbly spontaneous. > > I agree, there is no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, > randomness is possible. And there is another name for doing things for no > reason, irrational.?? Not all reasons for doing things are causes since some reasons for doing things are the effects of whatever it is that your are doing. And doing something to bring about a desired effect is neither random or irrational. > I sure don't see why that doesn't follow! Evolution can't see > consciousness so it certainly could not have selected for it, and yet it > produced me and I am conscious. So Evolution must have selected for > something that it can see, like intelligence, and consciousness just rode > in on its coattails. Neither me nor evolution would be able to see the intelligence of John Clark if he were implemented on a computer so slow that it took days to process the image of a dangerous predator stalking him. Perhaps this means intelligence is a relative and time-dependent phenomenon rather than being some sort of all or nothing absolute. > No, if Life is Turing complete, and it is, then it necessarily does mean > it can emulate Windows or a Mac or the actions of John Clark. Of course > to do all that the Turing Machine used would need to able to go into many > many different states, but that's just a question of software, the > hardware wouldn't change. I think intelligence is more than just the sheer number of states a system has but also how fast the system can change between those states. Which might be why nobody uses the adjective intelligent to describe plants. Stuart LaForge From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Oct 19 23:26:17 2018 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 10:26:17 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 08:50, Stuart LaForge wrote: John Clark wrote: > > > But the fact is you chose to do X > > rather than Y because you prefer X. Why do you prefer X ? There are only > > 2 possibilities, there was a reason for you preferring it in which case > > you are in the realm of cause and effect, or there was no cause for your > > preference in which case it was random. So it's always a cuckoo clock or > > a roulette wheel. > > A choice is a decision and decisions are not mystical phenomenon. A > thermostat makes decisions, computers make decisions, and bacteria make > decisions. Choice is a real physical phenomenon. > > I think you are conflating reason with cause. I can choose to save my > money to buy a car in the future. Such a choice has no cause because > classic causation presumably follows the arrow of time. Causes are in the > past and effects are in the future. Therefore my preference to save my > money has no past cause but it certainly has a reason and is certainly not > random or irrational. You could make a case for reverse causation, but I > have trouble envisioning a retrocausal cuckoo clock. > Your preferences are psychological states, physically encoded in your brain, which form as a result of previous brain configuration and previous experience. Your preferences therefore have a cause in the past and are the cause of future events. An uncaused choice would be one that happens for no reason at all, not even a bad reason. This might be OK if it happens occasionally but if all your choices were like this you would not survive long. >> Furthermore Conway published theorems regarding free will which > >> defined it as the ability to make choices that are not a function of >> > the past. > > > That's an event without a cause, and that's the definition of random. > > Humans can make decisions based upon preferences for future states that do > not yet exist. Those decisions are events that are neither random nor > caused by most accepted notions of causation. > The future state does not exist and may in fact never exist, but idea of the future state exists encoded in your brain, and it is this which is a contributory cause to forward-planning behaviour. > > The only definition of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is > > the inability to always know for sure what you're going to do next until > > you actually do it, and I find that no more mysterious and profound than > > the fact that you don't know what the results of a calculation will be > > until you've finished the calculation. > > I agree that there is nothing profound or mysterious about the ability to > make decisions. > > > > >> Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is > >> debatable, but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do > >> something unpredicatbly spontaneous. > > > > I agree, there is no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, > > randomness is possible. And there is another name for doing things for no > > reason, irrational. > > Not all reasons for doing things are causes since some reasons for doing > things are the effects of whatever it is that your are doing. And doing > something to bring about a desired effect is neither random or irrational. > The effect does not contribute to its own cause. The expected effect is like a simulation in the brain. If you think that you will go to paradise if you crash a plane into a building, it is not going to paradise that makes you crash the plane. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 00:38:13 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 19:38:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: References: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I can choose to save my money to buy a car in the future. Such a choice has no cause because classic causation presumably follows the arrow of time. Causes are in the past and effects are in the future. Not sure who wrote that. -------------------- Think of it this way: are you comfortable with an idea causing a behavior? Of course. That's practically self-evident. What if the idea is to buy a car now but not using it until much later? So here is the cause effect sequence: (1) idea/expectation of future utility causes/leads to (2) buying the car now. Similarly, you get your hair cut today because of a date in three days. "Why did you get your hair cut?" "I have a date in three days and I want to look my best." Cause = date? No. Cause equals anticipation of date. What if the date cancels? Are you left with an effect with no cause? Nope. Cause still idea. ------------------------------ > The only definition of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is > the inability to always know for sure what you're going to do next until you actually do it But this would also be the case if there were no free will. So the inability does not help us distinguish between free will and none. bill w bill w No contradiction or reversal of cause and effect - cause now effects closely follows. Simple. On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:31 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 08:50, Stuart LaForge wrote: > > John Clark wrote: >> >> > But the fact is you chose to do X >> > rather than Y because you prefer X. Why do you prefer X ? There are only >> > 2 possibilities, there was a reason for you preferring it in which case >> > you are in the realm of cause and effect, or there was no cause for your >> > preference in which case it was random. So it's always a cuckoo clock or >> > a roulette wheel. >> >> A choice is a decision and decisions are not mystical phenomenon. A >> thermostat makes decisions, computers make decisions, and bacteria make >> decisions. Choice is a real physical phenomenon. >> >> I think you are conflating reason with cause. I can choose to save my >> money to buy a car in the future. Such a choice has no cause because >> classic causation presumably follows the arrow of time. Causes are in the >> past and effects are in the future. Therefore my preference to save my >> money has no past cause but it certainly has a reason and is certainly not >> random or irrational. You could make a case for reverse causation, but I >> have trouble envisioning a retrocausal cuckoo clock. >> > > Your preferences are psychological states, physically encoded in your > brain, which form as a result of previous brain configuration and previous > experience. Your preferences therefore have a cause in the past and are the > cause of future events. An uncaused choice would be one that happens for no > reason at all, not even a bad reason. This might be OK if it happens > occasionally but if all your choices were like this you would not survive > long. > > >> Furthermore Conway published theorems regarding free will which >> >> defined it as the ability to make choices that are not a function of >> >> the past. >> >> > That's an event without a cause, and that's the definition of random. >> >> Humans can make decisions based upon preferences for future states that do >> not yet exist. Those decisions are events that are neither random nor >> caused by most accepted notions of causation. >> > > The future state does not exist and may in fact never exist, but idea of > the future state exists encoded in your brain, and it is this which is a > contributory cause to forward-planning behaviour. > > >> > The only definition of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is >> > the inability to always know for sure what you're going to do next until >> > you actually do it, and I find that no more mysterious and profound than >> > the fact that you don't know what the results of a calculation will be >> > until you've finished the calculation. >> >> I agree that there is nothing profound or mysterious about the ability to >> make decisions. >> >> > >> >> Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is >> >> debatable, but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do >> >> something unpredicatbly spontaneous. >> > >> > I agree, there is no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, >> > randomness is possible. And there is another name for doing things for >> no >> > reason, irrational. >> >> Not all reasons for doing things are causes since some reasons for doing >> things are the effects of whatever it is that your are doing. And doing >> something to bring about a desired effect is neither random or irrational. >> > > The effect does not contribute to its own cause. The expected effect is > like a simulation in the brain. If you think that you will go to paradise > if you crash a plane into a building, it is not going to paradise that > makes you crash the plane. > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Oct 20 17:25:38 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:25:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 5:52 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > * > It's not the potential for FTL signals that is the problem. It is the > instantaneous nature of collapse. If you and I are space-like separated and > we are both studying the same entangled quantum system, then the first one > of us to observe our entangled particle instantly collapses the wave > function for both of us. But according to relativity, the concept of > "first" between two space-like separated events is meaningless.* There is no way we can use that wave collapse as a signal to synchronize distant clocks and establish a universal time standard, so it doesn't violate relativity. And relativity doesn't say that 2 observers can never agree which of 2 events came first, it just says they can't always agree. If 2 observers are not moving relative to each other and know how far apart they are then they can agree on which of 2 events came first. > *> So which one of us actually collapsed the wave function?* If the 2 are not moving with respect to each other and thus can agree on when "now" happens then that question is meaningful because it has observable consequences, but if they are moving with respect to each other the question is ambiguous because it implies that the ideas of "before" and "after" are well defined but in this situation they are not. Forget General Relativity and forget Quantum Mechanics, that sort of weirdness is inherent even in Special Relativity. If you and I pass each other at close to the speed of light I see your clock running slower than mine and you see my clock running slower than yours. I admit that it seems weird that both clocks are running slower than the other, but there is no contradiction. When we both use stopwatches to measure how long it takes our super fast cars to travel between 2 marks on the road we confirm that each others stopwatch is running slower than the other but contradiction is avoided precisely because we can't agree about when "now" happens and thus we can't agree on when the correct time to start and stop our stopwatches when we pass those marks on the road is. > >> That is only from the viewpoint of somebody outside the multiverse looking >> in at it, and that viewpoint does not exist. > > > * >I am not sure I understand this objection. I can never directly observe > the fusion occurring in the heart of the sun, yet I can be confident it > occurs based on theory* It would be difficult to engineer such an observing platform but in theory you could observe the heart of the sun, however an observer outside of the multiverse looking in at it would not only violate physical law it would be a flat out logical contradiction. * > If the multiverse contains all possible arrangements of matter and > energy in all possible space-times then the multiverse as a whole cannot > change.* > No observer can see the multiverse as a whole, the very idea is self contradictory. The multiverse is at least a 4D object, maybe 5D or even more, but however many dimensions it has one thing we know for sure is that it's not homogeneous, it does change along all its time dimensions and it does change along all its spatial dimensions. >> When speaking about the multiverse and Many Worlds the use of personal pronouns >> like "you" and "your" can easily become ambiguous. > > > * > True. Where the multiverse is concerned you are no longer an > individual but an entire category of individuals that share certain > properties.* > Even if we found out that the entire multiverse idea was wrong the problem of establishing individuality would remain. Once Drexler style Nanotechnology has been achieved people duplicating machines will become practical and then this will no longer be just a rarefied philosophical puzzle it will be a matter of life and death. I am John Clark because I remember being John Clark yesterday, and because people duplicating machines don't exist yet I can be confident no other being in the observable universe can remember that; but no breakthrough in science or the discovery of some new law of physics is required to achieve Drexler's Nanotechnology, all that is needed is improved engineering skill. I signed up with Alcor to be frozen in liquid nitrogen after my death not because I thought there was any chance of of anybody ever reviving my body, I signed up because I thought there was a nonzero chance the liquid nitrogen would preserve information in my brain to create a being that remembers being me today. I believe that being would be me, so I signed up. Most people disagree and think such a being would not be them, and so they have not signed up. As I said this is a matter of life and death. > > >> Alan Guth's Inflation theory explains that very nicely, the distant parts of >> the universe we see with our largest telescopes are not causally connected >> now but at one time there were, and then the universe expanded much >> faster than light and that's why they are in thermal equilibrium now. > > > * > I have some serious misgivings of physics that supposedly worked once > and only once in the entire history of the universe solely for the purpose > of patching holes in our models.* But Guth's inflation field solved 3 different apparently unrelated problems, the thermal equilibrium problem , the flatness problem, and the monopole problem. And Inflation made an amazingly accurate prediction of what the slight variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation would look like 30 years before if was actually observed. And inflation also correctly predicted the amount of Hydrogen and deuterium and Helium-3 and Helium-4 and Lithium-6 and Lithium-7 that the Big Bang would create. I think that's pretty impressive. > >* superluminal inflation would have super-cooled the universe requiring > a "reheating" period which is just kind of glossed over.* An expanding gas isn't always cooled, for example if I divide a chamber in two and there is a gas at high pressure in half of it and a vacuum in the other half and I suddenly remove the barrier between the two the gas expands to fill the entire chamber, but the gas isn't cooled because it did no work. Work is force over distance and that didn't happen. During the exponential expansion phase Guth's inflation field did the work not the hot gas. > > * >I think you are conflating reason with cause.* Different words same idea. > > *I can choose to save my money to buy a car in the future. Such a > choice has no cause* Yes it does, the cause of you saving your money was your desire to buy a car. Why did you have a desire to buy a car? I don't know but I do know there are only 2 possibilities, there was a reason for your desire in which case it was deterministic or there was no reason for your desire to buy a car in which case it was random. > *> because classic causation presumably follows the arrow of time.* You had a desire to buy a car before you saved your money and bought the car. Cause preceded effect in accordance with the arrow of time. > * > Humans can make decisions based upon preferences for future states > that do not yet exist.* But brain states that hypothesize about the future DO exist in the present. > *Not all reasons for doing things are causes since some reasons for doing > things are the effects of whatever it is that your are doing.* Sorry, I don't know what that means. > *> And doing something to bring about a desired effect is neither random > or irrational.* > If you are doing something to bring about a desired effect, or doing it for any reason whatsoever, then you are doing it for a reason and thus by definition it is rational. It may not be a good or moral reason, it might not even be consistent with other reasons you have for doing other things, but it is a reason nevertheless. But if you are doing something for no reason at all then it is irrational, aka random. > *Neither me nor evolution would be able to see the intelligence of John > Clark if he were implemented on a computer so slow that it took days to > process the image of a dangerous predator stalking him. * And that is exactly why Evolution never produced such a slow witted John Clark. > * > I think intelligence is more than just the sheer number of states a > system has but also how fast the system can change between those states. * If we're talking practicality then speed is vastly important and along with energy usage is the most important engineering consideration, but we were talking philosophy not engineering and for that speed is irrelevant. > *I think intelligence is more than just the sheer number of states a > system **has but also how fast the system can change between those > states.* Then a AI has yet another huge advantage over us. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frankmac at ripco.com Sat Oct 20 23:26:29 2018 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frank mcelligott) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 16:26:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] decentralization Message-ID: Here is a link to an article concerning where we are going, as I read it. I thought it would help us toward the door to the future, a view at least and is that door opening or closing https://latest.13d.com/decentralization-megatrend-disruptive-tech-tim-berners-lee-369fafc82068 Frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Oct 21 05:11:29 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2018 22:11:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] mica the human-like sim Message-ID: <002101d468fc$87120760$95361620$@rainier66.com> I don't know why Rolling Stone thinks this is creepy. Hell I am in love with this sim girl: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/mica-ai-assistant-lifelike -magic-leap-744244/ This is exactly what we need to create the software geezer companion. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 07:41:42 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 09:41:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:28 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > John Clark wrote: > > > Copenhagen has many faults but I don't think FTL wave function collapse > > violates relativity because it can't be used to transmit a signal faster > > than light. > > It's not the potential for FTL signals that is the problem. It is the > instantaneous nature of collapse. If you and I are space-like separated > and we are both studying the same entangled quantum system, then the first > one of us to observe our entangled particle instantly collapses the wave > function for both of us. But according to relativity, the concept of > "first" between two space-like separated events is meaningless. So which > one of us actually collapsed the wave function? Instantaneous wave > function collapse and general relativity are logically incompatible. No, because according to current consensus the randomness of quantum collapse ensures that you can't use it to send signals faster than light. Elsewhere in the book I argue that your space-like separation scenario shows that the two particles, and the two observers, are really one and the same particle and observer. > > > >> That was the part of Everett's interpretation that I disliked the most > >> until I realized that the math works out the same if universe doesn't > >> split because all the possible universes are all already out there > > > > That is only from the viewpoint of somebody outside the multiverse > > looking in at it, and that viewpoint does not exist. > > I am not sure I understand this objection. I can never directly observe > the fusion occurring in the heart of the sun, yet I can be confident it > occurs based on theory and the observation of the energy released. > Similarly I cannot observe the multiverse, but I can observe the quantum > states that result from statistically sampling from the multiverse. > > >> If all possible causal cells (Everett branches) exist on the same > >> infinite n-dimensional manifold, then the overall state of universe > >> itself does not change > > > > Does not change in what dimension? If the spacetime in the multiverse did > > not change in any direction the Multiverse could only be an eternal > > unbounded infinitely large homogeneous lattice, and anything that simple > > and dull could never have something as complex as life in it or anything > > interesting. > > If the multiverse contains all possible arrangements of matter and energy > in all possible space-times then the multiverse as a whole cannot change. > Similarly, there are infinite possible subsets of integers, and I can > sample the integers over time and get a different subset each time, so the > subsets can vary over time, but the infinite set of all integers does not > change. > > > When speaking about the multiverse and Many Worlds the use of personal > > pronouns like "you" and "your" can easily become ambiguous. > > True. Where the multiverse is concerned you are no longer an individual > but an entire category of individuals that share certain properties. > However all the instances of you throughout the multiverse should, in > theory, be entangled with one another. So there is still some > justification for all your instances being called you. > > > > > > >>> I don't see how locality could be wrong. If things were non-local > >>> a change anywhere would instantly change everything everywhere and > >>> before you could understand anything you'd have to understand > >>> everything. We certainly don't know everything but we do know a few > >>> things and I don't see how we could if things were non-local. > > > >> String theorists propose as many as 14 dimensions. All it takes is for > >> one of those extra dimensions to actually exist and opposite sides of > >> the observable universe could be an inch apart through that extra > >> dimension. > > > > But then it's hard to understand why classical physics can do such a good > > job at predicting the tides when it only takes into account the moon and > > the sun, it ignores all the movements of planets a billion light years > > away and assumes that things are local. And classical physics gets away > > with it and I don't see how it could if things were not local. > > Well most things in physics probably are local but for some reason quantum > information doesn't seem to be. Either that or everything that exists > exists solely to be observed by consciousness, and doesn't exist when not > being observed. And that sounds a lot like a simulation to me. > > > Alan Guth's Inflation theory explains that very nicely, the distant parts > > of the universe we see with our largest telescopes are not causally > > connected now but at one time there were, and then the universe expanded > > much faster than light and that's why they are in thermal equilibrium > > now. > > I have some serious misgivings of physics that supposedly worked once and > only once in the entire history of the universe solely for the purpose of > patching holes in our models. For example, superluminal inflation would > have super-cooled the universe requiring a "reheating" period which is > just kind of glossed over. How would the universe have reheated itself > after inflation. Where did the heat come from if the universe was all > there was and fusion which requires baryons hadn't started yet? > > > But the fact is you chose to do X > > rather than Y because you prefer X. Why do you prefer X ? There are only > > 2 possibilities, there was a reason for you preferring it in which case > > you are in the realm of cause and effect, or there was no cause for your > > preference in which case it was random. So it's always a cuckoo clock or > > a roulette wheel. > > A choice is a decision and decisions are not mystical phenomenon. A > thermostat makes decisions, computers make decisions, and bacteria make > decisions. Choice is a real physical phenomenon. > > I think you are conflating reason with cause. I can choose to save my > money to buy a car in the future. Such a choice has no cause because > classic causation presumably follows the arrow of time. Causes are in the > past and effects are in the future. Therefore my preference to save my > money has no past cause but it certainly has a reason and is certainly not > random or irrational. You could make a case for reverse causation, but I > have trouble envisioning a retrocausal cuckoo clock. > > > >> Furthermore Conway published theorems regarding free will which > >> defined it as the ability to make choices that are not a function of >> > the past. > > > That's an event without a cause, and that's the definition of random. > > Humans can make decisions based upon preferences for future states that do > not yet exist. Those decisions are events that are neither random nor > caused by most accepted notions of causation. > > > The only definition of free will that I know of that isn't gibberish is > > the inability to always know for sure what you're going to do next until > > you actually do it, and I find that no more mysterious and profound than > > the fact that you don't know what the results of a calculation will be > > until you've finished the calculation. > > I agree that there is nothing profound or mysterious about the ability to > make decisions. > > > > >> Whether Conway's definition of free will is correct or not is > >> debatable, but I can deliberately choose to say a non-sequitur or do > >> something unpredicatbly spontaneous. > > > > I agree, there is no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, > > randomness is possible. And there is another name for doing things for no > > reason, irrational. > > Not all reasons for doing things are causes since some reasons for doing > things are the effects of whatever it is that your are doing. And doing > something to bring about a desired effect is neither random or irrational. > > > > I sure don't see why that doesn't follow! Evolution can't see > > consciousness so it certainly could not have selected for it, and yet it > > produced me and I am conscious. So Evolution must have selected for > > something that it can see, like intelligence, and consciousness just rode > > in on its coattails. > > Neither me nor evolution would be able to see the intelligence of John > Clark if he were implemented on a computer so slow that it took days to > process the image of a dangerous predator stalking him. Perhaps this means > intelligence is a relative and time-dependent phenomenon rather than being > some sort of all or nothing absolute. > > > No, if Life is Turing complete, and it is, then it necessarily does mean > > it can emulate Windows or a Mac or the actions of John Clark. Of course > > to do all that the Turing Machine used would need to able to go into many > > many different states, but that's just a question of software, the > > hardware wouldn't change. > > I think intelligence is more than just the sheer number of states a system > has but also how fast the system can change between those states. Which > might be why nobody uses the adjective intelligent to describe plants. > > Stuart LaForge > > From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 14:16:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 09:16:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas Message-ID: People, well a lot of people, are pretty dumb, and give money to Nigerian princes etc. Billions including all the scams and credit card number stealers? Well, what if nobody knew his credit card number? It was only on the card as asterisks - or simply not at all - just a chip there. What about buying over the phone? Then you use LastPass or something to beep the numbers (and letters and ???). Then the bad guys would have to hack software, not vulnerable people - not nearly as easy. I am not awake yet and so cannot see problems, though I expect this group will find them if they are here. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 14:21:12 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:21:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I think it will take another crash on Wall Street or maybe even worse to > get us off the free money train we are riding. > I think the dangers of deficit spending have been dramatically overstated, the USA has spent more money than it had in nearly every year since it started in 1776 and yet that doesn't seem to have harmed it, the country is still here and is the most powerful in the world. I'm not saying deficit spending couldn't theoretically get out of hand but I am saying it is not necessary or even desirable for a government to have a precisely balanced budget each and every year. But if you think it's important, only 7 presidents have left office with the government owing less money as a percentage of GDP than when they entered the office. The are listed below, the first two made by far the largest reductions: 1) Harry Truman, a Democrat 2) Bill Clinton, a Democrat 3) Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican 4) Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat 5) Richard Nixon, a Republican 6) John Kennedy, a Democrat 7) Jimmy Carter, a Democrat It's interesting that the conventional wisdom that the Democrats are the spendthrift party and the Republicans are the conservative fiscally prudent party is inconsistent with the facts. > We have to raise taxes and lower spending without harming the vulnerable > - and yes, I do think that's possible To do that you would need a MASSIVE reduction in military spending, and even then I doubt it would be enough. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 14:29:35 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 09:29:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] mica the human-like sim In-Reply-To: <002101d468fc$87120760$95361620$@rainier66.com> References: <002101d468fc$87120760$95361620$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Her eyes are too wide apart for me, but them I am picky. Maybe they will offer customizable images, and of course men for the ladies. What troubles will be started when millions of people think she is real, like millions of soap opera fans think the characters are? Harmless? Hmmm. I suppose it beats talking to the dog. No reason why the image cannot be the family pet itself, replying as many people want it to. Or how about an X-rated version, where you can tell her to take off her clothes? Think it won't happen? Then we can replace her head with woman's next door, whose photo we clandestinely took. Video Photoshop for the weird crowd. And so on, as Vonnegut would say. bill w On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 12:16 AM wrote: > > > > > I don?t know why Rolling Stone thinks this is creepy. Hell I am in love > with this sim girl: > > > > > https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/mica-ai-assistant-lifelike-magic-leap-744244/ > > > > *This is exactly what we need to create the software geezer companion.* > > > > *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 Oct 21 15:10:14 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 10:10:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The only recent president you cite is Clinton. And I think your sample size is too small, and outdated, to make any judgment about current affairs. Why restrict the cuts to defense? Some Libertarians think the entire dept. of Education should be closed, among others. And do we really a Dept. of Agriculture, where there are more people working than there are farmers? And who let farmers use so much fertilizer that there are square miles of the Gulf where there is no life? We need not only international treaties governing nuclear weapons - we need treaties that restrict a countries' total defense spending. Massive cuts, you say? When we are spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense, massive cuts can be made if we can get China and Russia to do the same. The world is getting so interdependent that wars between the big countries is becoming something that would not solve anything, and disrupt the economies. Fight wars with tariffs - maybe that's a good answer. bill w On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 9:31 AM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:47 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > I think it will take another crash on Wall Street or maybe even worse >> to get us off the free money train we are riding. >> > > I think the dangers of deficit spending have been dramatically overstated, > the USA has spent more money than it had in nearly every year since it > started in 1776 and yet that doesn't seem to have harmed it, the country is > still here and is the most powerful in the world. I'm not saying deficit > spending couldn't theoretically get out of hand but I am saying it is not > necessary or even desirable for a government to have a precisely balanced > budget each and every year. > > But if you think it's important, only 7 presidents have left office with > the government owing less money as a percentage of GDP than when they > entered the office. The are listed below, the first two made by far the > largest reductions: > > 1) Harry Truman, a Democrat > 2) Bill Clinton, a Democrat > 3) Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican > 4) Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat > 5) Richard Nixon, a Republican > 6) John Kennedy, a Democrat > 7) Jimmy Carter, a Democrat > > It's interesting that the conventional wisdom that the Democrats are the > spendthrift party and the Republicans are the conservative fiscally prudent > party is inconsistent with the facts. > > > We have to raise taxes and lower spending without harming the >> vulnerable - and yes, I do think that's possible > > > To do that you would need a MASSIVE reduction in military spending, and > even then I doubt it would be enough. > > 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 ben at zaiboc.net Sun Oct 21 17:20:37 2018 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 18:20:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BCCB565.20906@zaiboc.net> Zero Powers wrote: > Any scenario that ultimately leaves judicial decisions in the hands of AI strikes me as dystopian. An unstated, yet integral, aspect of human notions of justice is the concept of empathy. Any adjudicative ruling made by an agent which has no ability to empathize with the parties and witnesses will never feel like justice to us, however sound the ruling might be. William Flynn Wallace wrote: > final decisions, esp. in criminal cases, belong to people. There's only so much that a system can do without being 'conscious' (in the sense that we think of ourselves as conscious - having theory of mind, being self-reflective, etc.). If an AI is created that's able to function as a member of society, it will need to have these things, so empathy will be within its capabilities. There will be a point at which we have to include certain AI systems in the definition of 'people', and ultimately, of course, they will have far more of whatever it is that makes people people, than any original human being could ever have. I expect that any quality or ability that you can attribute to humans, will be possessed by super-intelligent, super-conscious AIs, in spades, plus ones that we don't have and probably can't even imagine. Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 17:42:15 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:42:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <5BCCB565.20906@zaiboc.net> References: <5BCCB565.20906@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: > > > > There's only so much that a system can do without being 'conscious' (in > the sense that we think of ourselves as conscious - having theory of mind, > being self-reflective, etc.). If an AI is created that's able to function > as a member of society, it will need to have these things, so empathy will > be within its capabilities. > > There will be a point at which we have to include certain AI systems in > the definition of 'people', and ultimately, of course, they will have far > more of whatever it is that makes people people, than any original human > being could ever have. I expect that any quality or ability that you can > attribute to humans, will be possessed by super-intelligent, > super-conscious AIs, in spades, plus ones that we don't have and probably > can't even imagine. > > Ben Zaiboc > Recent books by Damasio and Sapolsky show conclusively that without emotions, people just cannot make decisions that make much sense. For the technically minded, it's about the connections between the ventromedial Prefrontal cortex and the limbic system. Are AIs somehow to be equipped with superhuman emotions? What would that mean? Some probability statement about the likelihood of something occurring and a preference for the highest one? Or, depending on the situation, for the lowest one. Intelligence must now include emotions - it's not all rationality and never was. Historically,of course, emotional decisions were regarded as greatly flawed and to be avoided, and now we find out that we simply cannot avoid them. They are absolutely necessary. As a social psychologist that makes sense to me. Attitudes are defined in such a way as to denote that a leaning towards something means liking, and vice versa. A purely intellectual group of thoughts is an opinion - not an attitude. In other words it's neutral and we have no inclination to act in any way about it. There is no decision to be made concerning it. bill w > _________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 18:58:32 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 11:58:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Far too much incompatible infrastructure. The secured cards could not be used, and thus would not be used, and thus would fail to fix the problem. On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:19 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > People, well a lot of people, are pretty dumb, and give money to Nigerian princes etc. Billions including all the scams and credit card number stealers? > > Well, what if nobody knew his credit card number? It was only on the card as asterisks - or simply not at all - just a chip there. What about buying over the phone? Then you use LastPass or something to beep the numbers (and letters and ???). > > Then the bad guys would have to hack software, not vulnerable people - not nearly as easy. > > I am not awake yet and so cannot see problems, though I expect this group will find them if they are here. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From david.grimshaw6 at btinternet.com Sun Oct 21 19:01:33 2018 From: david.grimshaw6 at btinternet.com (DAVID GRIMSHAW) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 20:01:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <633aadff-5f4c-4e63-b6d3-92e50078e430@Spark> DAVID GRIMSHAW liked your email Spark by Readdle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Oct 21 19:35:23 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:35:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: References: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, October 21, 2018 12:41 am, Giulio Prisco wrote: > No, because according to current consensus the randomness of quantum > collapse ensures that you can't use it to send signals faster than light. > Elsewhere in the book I argue that your space-like separation > scenario shows that the two particles, and the two observers, are really > one and the same particle and observer. You and John seem to be agreement on this so I will demur. However, that entails that Copenhagen is just as likely to be the correct interpretation of QM as MWI. And the Copenhagen interpretation with its emphasis on consciousness puts it in opposition with realism and thereby makes it supportive of the Simulation Argument. Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Sun Oct 21 20:54:54 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 13:54:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <5BCCB565.20906@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: <00d901d46980$51cbd430$f5637c90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?Recent books by Damasio and Sapolsky show conclusively that without emotions, people just cannot make decisions that make much sense? >?Intelligence must now include emotions - it's not all rationality and never was. Historically,of course, emotional decisions were regarded as greatly flawed and to be avoided, and now we find out that we simply cannot avoid them. They are absolutely necessary?.bill w My intuition tells me this argument is correct, even though we know that emotions can lead to both good and bad decisions. The best approach is to always strive to have positive emotions, defined as the kind of emotions guiding decisions that result in helping oneself and others. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Oct 21 21:01:10 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 14:01:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ea01d46981$3218f0e0$964ad2a0$@rainier66.com> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:19 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > People, well a lot of people, are pretty dumb, and give money to Nigerian princes etc. ... If I had waaaay too much money, a gag I would love to pull off is to get a jillion dollars, hire and actual literal Nigerian prince, set up one of those scams that only the dumbest sucker on the planet would fall for, then when you find that guy, do everything your absurd spam message said you would do and give him a ton of money. While it could provide some expensive entertainment, a kind of reality show type of fun, I can see some negative consequences. You reward the biggest dumbass in history, it would encourage teeming hordes of lesser dumbasses to believe the other Nigerian princes might possibly be the real deal. The long term result could be more money is stolen by the usual army of fake Nigerian princes than you gave away to start with. OK scratch that idea, even if I do win the lottery. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 21:01:06 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 16:01:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:03 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > Far too much incompatible infrastructure. The secured cards could not > be used, and thus would not be used, and thus would fail to fix the > problem. > Well they changed over tons of equipment when they put that little doohickey on the card - insert instead of swipe. I suppose it all depends on how much theft they can stand - there has to be a better way. bill w > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 7:19 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > > People, well a lot of people, are pretty dumb, and give money to > Nigerian princes etc. Billions including all the scams and credit card > number stealers? > > > > Well, what if nobody knew his credit card number? It was only on the > card as asterisks - or simply not at all - just a chip there. What about > buying over the phone? Then you use LastPass or something to beep the > numbers (and letters and ???). > > > > Then the bad guys would have to hack software, not vulnerable people - > not nearly as easy. > > > > I am not awake yet and so cannot see problems, though I expect this > group will find them if they are here. > > > > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 21:08:15 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 16:08:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <00d901d46980$51cbd430$f5637c90$@rainier66.com> References: <5BCCB565.20906@zaiboc.net> <00d901d46980$51cbd430$f5637c90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 3:58 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > >?Recent books by Damasio and Sapolsky show conclusively that without > emotions, people just cannot make decisions that make much sense? > > > > >?Intelligence must now include emotions - it's not all rationality and > never was. Historically,of course, emotional decisions were regarded as > greatly flawed and to be avoided, and now we find out that we simply cannot > avoid them. They are absolutely necessary?.bill w > > > > > > My intuition tells me this argument is correct, even though we know that > emotions can lead to both good and bad decisions. > > > > The best approach is to always strive to have positive emotions, defined > as the kind of emotions guiding decisions that result in helping oneself > and others. > > > > spike > > The decisions, when they could finally make them (with which they had > great difficulty) made by the people who had the brain damage that resulted > in severing the connections were terrible. So much for rationality only. > Where did we ever learn to make good decisions? In how to deal with the world, we had home ec. Now we have more algebra. Poor decision. A friend sold shares for something or other, and the biggest selling point was just showing the prospect a chart where compound interest was shown - how fast it built up, etc. They sold tons. Were you taught about interest in high school? College? Anywhere? bill w > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Oct 21 23:03:45 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:03:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: References: <24288dbc9a43d09877deb69244ff4fdc.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 4:44 PM Stuart LaForge wrote:\ > > *the Copenhagen interpretation with its emphasis on consciousness* That's one reason I don't like Copenhagen. You have to give this to the MWI, it gives a complete explanation for quantum weirdness; that explanation may or may not turn out to be correct but at least it's complete in a way that Copenhagen is not. Copenhagen says nothing about what consciousness is or how it works, the MWI doesn't either but unlike Copenhagen it doesn't need to because consciousness has nothing to do with the MWI. Also you can't think about cosmology if Copenhagen is in your head, or at least you can't if you're thinking about the universe when it was very young and very very small, but you can with the MWI. And so I'd have to say that today the MWI is the least bad explanation of quantum weirdness, but for all I know somebody could find a better one tomorrow. > > *puts it* [Copenhagen] *in opposition with realism and thereby makes it > supportive of the Simulation Argument.* If we live in a simulation and the simulation programmers write efficient code then the moon does not exist when we're not looking at it, but something still does, the simulation programmers and their computer. If realism is untrue then NOTHING exists when we're not looking at it. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Oct 22 02:37:44 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 19:37:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church Message-ID: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Your preferences are psychological states, physically encoded in your > brain, which form as a result of previous brain configuration and previous > experience. If all future mental states are exclusively dependent on past brain states, then how can creativity and innovation occur? How is any novelty generated by the brain at all? How does an artist create without being somehow able to see his future creation in his mind's eye? Perhaps the motivation to create is provided by previous brain states but the FORM of the creation? Where in the past may that novelty of form have come from? Simple randomness? I find it hard to believe that, for example, Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" was simply the result of past brain states and randomness. > Your preferences therefore have a cause in the past and are > the cause of future events. An uncaused choice would be one that happens > for no reason at all, not even a bad reason. This might be OK if it > happens occasionally but if all your choices were like this you would not > survive long. Ok. So you are here suggesting that an uncaused choice is at least possible if not beneficial. So then are ALL uncaused choices therefore simply random? Or might at least a handful of them have some retrocausal element? >> Humans can make decisions based upon preferences for future states that >> do not yet exist. Those decisions are events that are neither random nor >> caused by most accepted notions of causation. > > The future state does not exist and may in fact never exist, but idea of > the future state exists encoded in your brain, and it is this which is a > contributory cause to forward-planning behaviour. If future-oriented behavior is always caused by the formation of an abstract idea or goal of a desired future on the basis of past brain states alone, then how did this puppy first conceive of such an elaborate and time-consuming plan of escape? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLssW7lyzxw It almost seems more likely that the puppy simply somehow sensed the future "escaped" state would result from its risking injury to climb the enclosure in such an awkward fashion. Either that or dogs can plan ahead far better than we give them credit for. >> Not all reasons for doing things are causes since some reasons for >> doing things are the effects of whatever it is that your are doing. And >> doing something to bring about a desired effect is neither random or >> irrational. > > The effect does not contribute to its own cause. The expected effect is > like a simulation in the brain. If you think that you will go to paradise > if you crash a plane into a building, it is not going to paradise that > makes you crash the plane. But even if it were true, going to paradise would not be an immediate effect of, but instead several steps removed from, crashing a plane into a building. To go to paradise one must first die, then be judged worthy, and then finally be resurrected into ones eternal reward. In so far as the first step of going to paradise, namely dying, can be achieved flawlessly as envisioned by the pilot, a case might be made that being destined to die in such a fashion in ones particular Everett branch might contribute in some fashion to flying a plane into a building. Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Mon Oct 22 03:08:36 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 20:08:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <459fdd9dc0e7ce71019aa959a1bdb3b0.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: > It would be difficult to engineer such an observing platform but in > theory you could observe the heart of the sun, however an observer outside > of the multiverse looking in at it would not only violate physical law it > would be a flat out logical contradiction. > > * > If the multiverse contains all possible arrangements of matter and > >> energy in all possible space-times then the multiverse as a whole >> cannot change.* >> > > No observer can see the multiverse as a whole, the very idea is self > contradictory. The multiverse is at least a 4D object, maybe 5D or even > more, but however many dimensions it has one thing we know for sure is > that it's not homogeneous, it does change along all its time dimensions > and it does change along all its spatial dimensions. I agree with you that there is no such thing as a vantage point outside the multiverse. What I still don't understand is how you think that such fact is related to whether the universe splits in MWI or whether the Wheeler-DeWitt equation is physically meaningful. >>> * superluminal inflation would have super-cooled the universe >>> requiring >> a "reheating" period which is just kind of glossed over.* > > > An expanding gas isn't always cooled, for example if I divide a chamber > in two and there is a gas at high pressure in half of it and a vacuum in > the other half and I suddenly remove the barrier between the two the gas > expands to fill the entire chamber, but the gas isn't cooled because it > did no work. Work is force over distance and that didn't happen. During > the exponential expansion phase Guth's inflation field did the work not > the hot gas. But there was no gas because there were was no matter. You could talk about a gas of photons but every time the universe doubled in size during inflation so would have the wavelengths of those photons. Thus inflation should have cooled the photon gas in accordance with the Planck law for black body radiation. So how did it reheat itself afterwards? Stuart LaForge From atymes at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 05:29:51 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 22:29:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:16 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:03 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> Far too much incompatible infrastructure. The secured cards could not >> be used, and thus would not be used, and thus would fail to fix the >> problem. > > Well they changed over tons of equipment when they put that little doohickey on the card - insert instead of swipe. I suppose it all depends on how much theft they can stand - there has to be a better way. Notice the new cards still have the stripe? They work with the old infrastructure, which is going to take a long time to fully upgrade. It's called "backward compatibility", and unfortunately it's a practical necessity in this case. From spike at rainier66.com Mon Oct 22 13:28:02 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 06:28:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01d46a0b$0f8a8db0$2e9fa910$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] another one of my questionable ideas On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:16 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 2:03 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >>>... Far too much incompatible infrastructure. The secured cards could >> not be used, and thus would not be used, and thus would fail to fix >> the problem. >>... Well they changed over tons of equipment when they put that little doohickey on the card - insert instead of swipe. I suppose it all depends on how much theft they can stand - there has to be a better way. >..Notice the new cards still have the stripe? They work with the old infrastructure, which is going to take a long time to fully upgrade. It's called "backward compatibility", and unfortunately it's a practical necessity in this case. _______________________________________________ Fun aside on this. I am a scout leader (surprise!) We do a fundraisers once a year, sell popcorn and such. Simultaneously the Girl Scout sell cookies but they always do better than we do even though there is way more of us. They have an advantage: the boys have their dads out there with them, the girls have the moms, and oh some of those moms, hooo mercy. And the grandmothers. And great grandmothers, smokin hot! but I digress, so where was I? Oh, boy scouts. Every year it seems we were hearing more people say they weren't carrying cash, which is totally believable because I stopped carrying cash several years ago. There was no point: it was dying of old age in my pocket. We were already at a huge disadvantage, trying to raise cash without the sexy, so we convinced the troop to buy an experimental battery-powered credit card reader, which isn't expensive at all. Turns out that was the best 50 bucks we ever invested. We bought one as an experiment from SquareUp, only works on chip cards. That station raised waaaaay more money than the others, way more, and we got a pile of guys who just gave small donations and didn't even take the popcorn. That was an important observation: plenty of people would rather give us five bucks than buy some useless thing they then need to carry home for eight. So now the strategy is to get four more of those readers for the other stations and we will by trustworthy! Loyal! Helpful! Friendly courteous kind obedient cheerful thrifty brave clean and respectful! Until the girls join us next year. Then... all bets are off. spike From giulio at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 13:35:08 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:35:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Following the visionary cosmism of Nikolai Fedorov and the recently published final book of Stephen Hawking, I think the future of humankind must be out there among the stars... https://turingchurch.net/maximum-jailbreak-and-the-legacy-of-stephen-hawking-3a5773b9e6df From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 14:22:13 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:22:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computers Message-ID: It had been feared Quantum Computers would never be practical because as the problems they worked on got bigger the error rate of the components of the computer would have to get better and better until you would need impossible precision to do anything. And until recently nobody had a rigorous proof that Quantum Computers were inherently superior to conventional computers. We still don't know if a quantum computer could solve all nondeterministic polynomial time problem in polynomial time but just a few months ago a proof was found that even if, to everybody's surprise, it turned out that P=NP and even if we had a algorithm that could solve NP problems on a conventional computer in polynomial time there would STILL be a class of problems a conventional computer couldn't solve efficiently but a quantum computer could. https://eccc.weizmann.ac.il/report/2018/107/ And then just a few days ago a proof was found that the error rate of the components of the Quantum Computer could remain constant as the size of this class of problems increased and the Quantum Computer would still work. That means they would be scalable, if you can build a small Quantum Computer you can build a large one. Even better the computer would work even if the components were arranged in a simple 2D grid, and that makes it far easier to actually engineer such a machine: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/362/6412/289.full.pdf http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/362/6412/308.full.pdf It should be noted that this has so far only been mathematically proven for a new and exotic class of problems, and nobody knows if they are of interest in themselves or if they are interesting only because a conventional computer can't solve them efficiently but a Quantum Computer can. We still don't have a proof this is also true of the class of problems we are more familiar with but I think most think it probably is. So maybe someday somebody will come up with a conventional algorithm that works as well as Shor's Quantum Factoring Algorithm, but I doubt it. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 15:31:27 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 11:31:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:15 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > The only recent president you cite is Clinton. And I think your sample > size is too small, and outdated, to make any judgment about current > affairs. > If you want a larger sample you're going to have to go back further in time. There have been 29 presidents since the Republican party was created, and only 7 have reduced the countries debt as a percentage of GDP, 2 have been Republicans and 5 were Democrats. And only 2 presidents have reduced the debt significantly and both were Democrats. You never have as much information as you'd like but I believe that's sufficient data to make a judgement;and my judgement is that the conventional wisdom that the Republicans are fiscal conservatives and the Democrats are spendthrifts is wrong. > Why restrict the cuts to defense? > I don't restrict it to defense but it can't be ignored because it's 54% of discretionary spending. > > Some Libertarians think the entire dept. of Education should be closed, > among others. > At one time I said the same thing and at one time I said it was impractical for the government to guarantee that all its citizens receive health care and at one time it was indeed impractical, but I don't think it is today. The USA is far richer than it was a few years ago even if most of the people who live in it are not. > When we are spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense, > A slight exaggeration, very slight. It's "only" more than the next 7 countries combined, and a flat tire is "only" flat on the bottom. > > massive cuts can be made if we can get China and Russia to do the same. > That's a big "if". For that you'd need a leader with great diplomatic skill, so obviously that's not going to happen anytime during the Trump Dynasty. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 15:41:18 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 10:41:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > cut department of education Please explain. From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 19:09:19 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:09:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <5BCCB565.20906@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 1:47 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Recent books by Damasio and Sapolsky show conclusively that without > emotions, people just cannot make decisions that make much sense. > AlphaZero makes decisions when it plays GO or Chess or Shogi and those decisions make sense, more sense than the decisions the humans make when they play against it. So I guess AlphaZero has emotions. > Are AIs somehow to be equipped with superhuman emotions? > They don't need to be super, regular old emotions will do. From a operational viewpoint a emotion is just a predisposition to do X rather than Y, and I see no reason that would be especially hard to program. For example, pain could be a subroutine such that the closer the number in the X register comes to the integer P the more computational resources will be devoted to changing that number, and if it ever actually equals P then the program should stop doing everything else and do nothing but try to change that number to something far enough away from P until it's no longer an urgent matter and the program can again do things that have nothing to do with P. > Historically,of course, emotional decisions were regarded as greatly > flawed and to be avoided, and now we find out that we simply cannot avoid > them. I agree, there is no logical reason to prefer doing something rather than nothing or to prefer life more than death, but I like something better than nothing and life better than death anyway because that's the way my brain is wired. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 20:21:01 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:21:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: <5BCCB565.20906@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: From a operational viewpoint a emotion is just a predisposition to do X rather than Y, John Clark So, I think I was right - the computer leans (has an attitude towards something it considers positive) and bases its decision on that leaning; meaning the probabilities it calculates always influence its decision: it always goes with the highest probability of success - I am assuming. Probabilities are then the analog of emotions, and are to be preferred to "Oh, I don't exactly know why, I just kinda like that one." bill w On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 2:14 PM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 1:47 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > Recent books by Damasio and Sapolsky show conclusively that without >> emotions, people just cannot make decisions that make much sense. >> > > AlphaZero makes decisions when it plays GO or Chess or Shogi and those > decisions make sense, more sense than the decisions the humans make when > they play against it. So I guess AlphaZero has emotions. > > > Are AIs somehow to be equipped with superhuman emotions? >> > > They don't need to be super, regular old emotions will do. From a > operational viewpoint a emotion is just a predisposition to do X rather > than Y, and I see no reason that would be especially hard to program. For > example, pain could be a subroutine such that the closer the number in the > X register comes to the integer P the more computational resources will be > devoted to changing that number, and if it ever actually equals P then the > program should stop doing everything else and do nothing but try to change > that number to something far enough away from P until it's no longer an > urgent matter and the program can again do things that have nothing to do > with P. > > > Historically,of course, emotional decisions were regarded as greatly >> flawed and to be avoided, and now we find out that we simply cannot avoid >> them. > > > I agree, there is no logical reason to prefer doing something rather than > nothing or to prefer life more than death, but I like something better than > nothing and life better than death anyway because that's the way my brain > is wired. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 20:34:54 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:34:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: my judgement is that the conventional wisdom that the Republicans are fiscal conservatives and the Democrats are spendthrifts is wrong. John Clark You could be right, but citing historical data seems to me to be irrelevant. Times change, parties change. I think the best way to characterize the political parties of today is not to do it. Or, you just say 'self-serving' and 'demogogic' and be done with it. I do think the DEms are more progressive. Neither are going to mess with Medicare and Social Security. And that's too bad. bill w On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 10:36 AM John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:15 AM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > The only recent president you cite is Clinton. And I think your sample >> size is too small, and outdated, to make any judgment about current >> affairs. >> > > If you want a larger sample you're going to have to go back further in > time. There have been 29 presidents since the Republican party was created, > and only 7 have reduced the countries debt as a percentage of GDP, 2 have > been Republicans and 5 were Democrats. And only 2 presidents have reduced > the debt significantly and both were Democrats. You never have as much > information as you'd like but I believe that's sufficient data to make a > judgement;and my judgement is that the conventional wisdom that the > Republicans are fiscal conservatives and the Democrats are spendthrifts is > wrong. > > > Why restrict the cuts to defense? >> > > I don't restrict it to defense but it can't be ignored because it's 54% of > discretionary spending. > > >> > Some Libertarians think the entire dept. of Education should be >> closed, among others. >> > > At one time I said the same thing and at one time I said it was > impractical for the government to guarantee that all its citizens receive > health care and at one time it was indeed impractical, but I don't think it > is today. The USA is far richer than it was a few years ago even if most of > the people who live in it are not. > > > When we are spending more than the rest of the world combined on >> defense, >> > > A slight exaggeration, very slight. It's "only" more than the next 7 > countries combined, and a flat tire is "only" flat on the bottom. > > >> > massive cuts can be made if we can get China and Russia to do the >> same. >> > > That's a big "if". For that you'd need a leader with great diplomatic > skill, so obviously that's not going to happen anytime during the Trump > Dynasty. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 22:02:10 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:02:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] politics of silicon valley Message-ID: Liberaltarianism? https://www.wired.com/story/political-education-silicon-valley/ bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 22 22:12:11 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:12:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: Message-ID: Giulio Prisco wrote: > Following the visionary cosmism of Nikolai Fedorov and the recently published final book of Stephen Hawking, I think the future of humankind must be out there among the stars... https://turingchurch.net/maximum-jailbreak-and-the-legacy-of-stephen-hawking-3a5773b9e6df >From the link > With a fraction of what we spend for useless gadgets, games, apps, fashion, cosmetics, unhealthy food, boring entertainment, and dumb culture, we can start colonizing the moon and the planets now. We can, we must, and we will. Why? Neither the moon nor the planets around the Sun are suitable habit for humans and further, they are deep gravity wells. Planets are a horridly inefficient way to use mass. I would think the advantages of building rotating habitats in free space (over planetary surfaces was obvious to present day Extropians. It was to the people in the L5 Society clear back in the 1970s. From spike at rainier66.com Mon Oct 22 23:24:07 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:24:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003e01d46a5e$54c08440$fe418cc0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson >...I would think the advantages of building rotating habitats in free space (over planetary surfaces was obvious to present day Extropians. It was to the people in the L5 Society clear back in the 1970s... Keith _______________________________________________ If we agree on the ultimate endgame: converting the metals in the solar system to thinking matter, we can do the following calculus: A human brain is about 1.4 kg and there are about 7 billion proles, so about 1E10 kg of human brain on this planet of mass about 6E24 kg, so if we want to think of only human brains as doing humanish thinking, then the ratio of thinking matter to non-thinking matter on this planet is about 1 part in 6E14. If we created an L5 station, it might support about, say 70 proles with a mass of perhaps (what would you guess Keith?) ten million kg? Then that station would have a ratio of thinking stuff to non-thinking stuff of about 100 kg to 1E7 which is a ration of about one part in 100k, which is about 6E9 or six billion times smarter than earth is now, and we might even be able to get it higher than that by choosing only smart people to go there. The L5 station is still way the heck dumber than the international space station is now, but the L5 station is self-sustaining. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:06:47 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:06:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why We Should Stop Conflating Human and Machine Intelligence Message-ID: "Indeed, some AI researchers maintain a close link with the neuroscience community, and inspiration runs in both directions. But the metaphor can be a hindrance to people trying to explain machine learning to those less familiar with it. One of the biggest risks of conflating human and machine intelligence is that we start to hand over too much agency to machines. For those of us working with software, it?s essential that we remember the agency is human?it?s humans who build these systems, after all. It?s worth unpacking the key differences between machine and human intelligence. While there are certainly similarities, it?s by looking at what makes them different that we can better grasp how artificial intelligence works, and how we can build and use it effectively." https://singularityhub.com/2018/10/19/why-we-should-stop-conflating-human-and-machine-intelligence/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:08:33 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:08:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?From_Quantum_Computing_to_a_Quantum_Internet?= =?utf-8?b?4oCUYSBSb2FkbWFw?= Message-ID: "Quantum computers are making all the headlines these days, but quantum communication technology may actually be closer to practical implementation. In a bid to hasten its arrival, researchers have now mapped out the path to a quantum internet. The building blocks for these emerging technologies are more or less the same. They both use qubits to encode information?the quantum equivalent to computer bits that can simultaneously be both 1 and 0 thanks to the phenomena of superposition. And they both rely on entanglement to inextricably link the quantum states of these qubits so that acting on one affects the other. But while building quantum computers capable of outperforming conventional ones on useful problems will require very large networks of qubits, you only need a handful to build useful communication networks." https://singularityhub.com/2018/10/22/from-quantum-computing-to-a-quantum-internet-a-roadmap/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:08:58 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:08:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church In-Reply-To: <459fdd9dc0e7ce71019aa959a1bdb3b0.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <459fdd9dc0e7ce71019aa959a1bdb3b0.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 11:13 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > An expanding gas isn't always cooled, for example if I divide a chamber in >> two and there is a gas at high pressure in half of it and a vacuum in the >> other half and I suddenly remove the barrier between the two the gas expands >> to fill the entire chamber, but the gas isn't cooled because it did no >> work. Work is force over distance and that didn't happen. During the >> exponential expansion phase Guth's inflation field did the work not the >> hot gas. > > > > *But there was no gas because there were was no matter.* That was true during the Inflation Era of the universe that lasted about 10^-35 to 10^-34 seconds, during that time most of the energy in the universe was in the form of the inflation field. After that the inflation field decayed away and the Universe entered the Radiation Era where most of the energy was in the form of photons. > > > *You could talk about a gas of photons but every time the universe doubled > in size during inflation so would have the wavelengths of those photons.* That is also true, as the universe got larger not only did the density of photons become less but due to redshifting the energy in the individual photons became less too. After 48,000 years the photons had been redshifted by a factor of 3600 and they no longer contained most of the mass/energy in the universe and the Radiation Era ended and the Matter Era started. By "matter" I mean a combination of regular matter and dark matter. The Matter Era lasted from 48,000 to 9.8 billion years after the Big Bang and we've been in the Dark Energy Era for the last 4 billion years. The Matter Era ended because Dark Energy seems to be a property of space itself so as the universe got larger the amount of matter in it remained constant but the amount of Dark Energy in it did not. For the sake of honesty I must admit that much of what I said above about the very early universe is conjecture because the oldest thing anybody has ever detected is the Cosmic Black Body Radiation, and that doesn't come from the Big Bang itself but from a time 380,000 years after it when the universe had cooled to less than 3000K and neutral hydrogen atoms could form and everything was no longer opaque to electromagnetic waves. > *So how did it reheat itself afterwards?* > By making the first stars, it's called reionization and there is evidence it happened about 180 million years after the Big Bang. By the way, I think it's pretty neat that this evidence came from a small team of astronomers and a radio telescope no larger than your kitchen table: https://phys.org/news/2018-02-secrets-universe.html John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:42:16 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:42:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 00:57:25 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:57:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Live Action Roleplaying (Larping)- Singularity Message-ID: Yes, this is a Singularity themed dating game larp!!! What will they think of next? Lol! I can't wait to host this at the next science fiction convention I attend... : ) *Most Innovative Game Nominee for Indie Groundbreaker Awards 2017.* *"Singularity *is a transhuman dating show larp. You play the Host, the Star, and three Contestants on a dating show game set in the transhuman future. During each session of the game, you play through one episode of the dating show. "*Singularity* is *The Upgrade* meets *Undertale*: a performative game show about the fragility of relationships made fascinating by its very queer, posthuman contestants. Quick and easy to set up and play, this game will nevertheless have your players in stitches, in tears, and in contemplation." - Professor Evan Torner, Co-Editor of *Analog Game Studies* "Singularity's contestants are diverse and cleverly written, built from fresh metaphors that'll immediately remind you of people you know." - Jackson Tegu, Designer of *Kaleidoscope* and*Monsterhearts: Second Skins* "Caitlynn Belle, Josh Jordan and their talented collaborators are in top form, raising the stakes on romance, competition, and what it means to be a conscious being." - Emily Care Boss, Designer of *Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon, *and other romance games" https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/186728/Singularity -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 02:33:37 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 19:33:37 -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: So what I want to know is, how hackproof are these lotteries? If you could rig the win and no one picks up that it's rigged, you've got the pot, free and clear. These really big pots seem like they'd be worth some criminal mastermind's time to rig - just once, so they don't get caught from repetition (a gamble in itself). I am well aware that such a "hack" would involve physical interface to the machines, making it more like a heist. But for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per participant, one could get some pretty skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot got this large? On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:45 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 From avant at sollegro.com Tue Oct 23 03:12:46 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:12:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Public draft of my book 'Tales of the Turing Church Message-ID: <586a3028dba7445c26e91289a4483bba.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: > For the > sake of honesty I must admit that much of what I said above about the > very early universe is conjecture because the oldest thing anybody has > ever detected is the Cosmic Black Body Radiation, and that doesn't come > from the Big Bang itself but from a time 380,000 years after it when the > universe had cooled to less than 3000K and neutral hydrogen atoms could > form and everything was no longer opaque to electromagnetic waves. Well I am satisfied with the admission that inflation is largely speculation. There are alternate speculations about what happens before the surface of last scattering. One I have been investigating lately is Sir Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology In a nutshell, he uses uses conformal geometry to derive a solution to Einstein's equations that allow serially expanding universes or what Penrose calls aeons. Penrose predicts that when the last proton in the universe decays the universe will enter into a new "radiation era" where the universe only has massless photons in it. Since massless particles like photons move at c and therefore do not experience time or distance, this resets the FLRW metric scale parameter to its minimum. This is possible because of the conformal geometry of light rays and subtle distinctions between different measures of space-time curvature in General Relativity. In other words, the big bang reboots itself once all that's left in the universe is electromagnetic radiation. Stuart LaForge From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 07:19:01 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 02:19:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Live Action Roleplaying (Larping)- Singularity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <71B89668-3027-4039-B022-ABDCDACC69CA@gmail.com> Very, very cool. Probably the best way to get transhumanism in front of the exact people who would be interested in it. > On Oct 22, 2018, at 7:57 PM, John Grigg wrote: > > Yes, this is a Singularity themed dating game larp!!! What will they think of next? Lol! I can't wait to host this at the next science fiction convention I attend... : ) > > > > Most Innovative Game Nominee for Indie Groundbreaker Awards 2017. > > "Singularity is a transhuman dating show larp. You play the Host, the Star, and three Contestants on a dating show game set in the transhuman future. During each session of the game, you play through one episode of the dating show. > > "Singularity is The Upgrade meets Undertale: a performative game show about the fragility of relationships made fascinating by its very queer, posthuman contestants. Quick and easy to set up and play, this game will nevertheless have your players in stitches, in tears, and in contemplation." - Professor Evan Torner, Co-Editor of Analog Game Studies > "Singularity's contestants are diverse and cleverly written, built from fresh metaphors that'll immediately remind you of people you know." - Jackson Tegu, Designer of Kaleidoscope andMonsterhearts: Second Skins > "Caitlynn Belle, Josh Jordan and their talented collaborators are in top form, raising the stakes on romance, competition, and what it means to be a conscious being." - Emily Care Boss, Designer of Breaking the Ice, Shooting the Moon, and other romance games" > > > https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/186728/Singularity > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Tue Oct 23 08:15:21 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 01:15:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <003e01d46a5e$54c08440$fe418cc0$@rainier66.com> References: <003e01d46a5e$54c08440$fe418cc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 4:27 PM wrote: > If we created an L5 station, it might support about, say 70 proles Not if it's meant to be self-sustaining. You'd need minimum 10,000, possibly at least 100,000. The factors are more political and economic than technological, but are no less real. 70 people is an outpost that gets abandoned (or rotates crews) after a few years, maximum. From giulio at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 08:38:56 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:38:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am not against habitats in free space ;-) Let's do both and let1000 flowers bloom. But the psychological impact of lunar and planetary outpost is higher (to me at least). Ultimately, space is not for biological humans, but for our post-biological mind children. But we need to develop human presence in space now, for the mental health of our species. Wee need to keep the space dream alive, otherwise we'll stagnate and never become posthumans. Therefore, let's not wait for posthuman mind children, but let's go to space now. The Moon, Mars, L5, let's do all of that. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:16 AM Keith Henson wrote: > > Giulio Prisco wrote: > > > Following the visionary cosmism of Nikolai Fedorov and the recently > published final book of Stephen Hawking, I think the future of > humankind must be out there among the stars... > > https://turingchurch.net/maximum-jailbreak-and-the-legacy-of-stephen-hawking-3a5773b9e6df > > From the link > > > With a fraction of what we spend for useless gadgets, games, apps, fashion, cosmetics, unhealthy food, boring entertainment, and dumb culture, we can start colonizing the moon and the planets now. We can, we must, and we will. > > Why? Neither the moon nor the planets around the Sun are suitable > habit for humans and further, they are deep gravity wells. Planets > are a horridly inefficient way to use mass. > > I would think the advantages of building rotating habitats in free > space (over planetary surfaces was obvious to present day Extropians. > It was to the people in the L5 Society clear back in the 1970s. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 13:20:19 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:20:19 -0500 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: Lotteries are a way for legislators to avoid raising taxes, and it mostly impacts the poor - just the reverse of progressive taxation that I prefer. I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people in a giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would hire people to investigate charities and give most of it away. In Mississippi we have a new lottery. The money goes to roads and bridges, which the legislators have allowed to fall into severe disrepair. Better than nothing, I reckon. bill w On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:38 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > So what I want to know is, how hackproof are these lotteries? If you > could rig the win and no one picks up that it's rigged, you've got the > pot, free and clear. These really big pots seem like they'd be worth > some criminal mastermind's time to rig - just once, so they don't get > caught from repetition (a gamble in itself). > > I am well aware that such a "hack" would involve physical interface to > the machines, making it more like a heist. But for tens or hundreds > of millions of dollars per participant, one could get some pretty > skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot > got this large? > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:45 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 23 14:11:13 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:11:13 -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: <004801d46ada$425a83b0$c70f8b10$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? >?Lotteries are a way for legislators to avoid raising taxes? Ja. Legislatures have a big job on their hands if they manage to raise taxes: deal with the resulting unemployment. >?and it mostly impacts the poor? That tax is different however. It is entirely voluntary. >?- just the reverse of progressive taxation that I prefer. But that one is highly progressive: the poor pay little or no tax, the lottery winners pay a lot of tax. >?I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars?. Perhaps you saw that time Dr. Evil went forward in time and blackmailed the world government into giving him? one millllllion dollars. He didn?t know why they all broke out laughing. His assistant had to tell him: Chief, one million dollars isn?t a lot of money. Evil: Oh right. One hundred billllllion dollars. >?Two people in a giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Never mind the mansion. Several servants and a limo could burn through a million dollars in less than a year easily. Ask a former local resident MC Hammer. https://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/whatever-happened-to-mc-hammer/all >?Nah. So I would hire people to investigate charities and give most of it away. Anders Sandberg is involved in a group called Effective Altruism. They take an engineering approach to charity. Very cool. Lotsa math. https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ >?In Mississippi we have a new lottery. The money goes to roads and bridges, which the legislators have allowed to fall into severe disrepair. Better than nothing, I reckon. bill w BillW, your post has me thinking. The local real estate market as progressed from absurd to far beyond mere absurd. The price of some of these local dumpy tract shacks are making headlines for exceeding a thousand dollars per square foot. Less than a mile from here, a 1100 sf 3/2 in what was once a questionable neighborhood went for 1.2 million last month. It is only four miles from Tesla however, which is what is driving the insanity. It occurred to me that if we had some kind of national level housing program, it makes no sense whatsoever to house the poor here. For the same money it would cost to put a single family in a small house here, the same money could get a big house which could be subdivided for five families in Mississippi, each with more room than the one house here, or ten houses in West Virginia where my grandparents grew up. This observation leads to our recognizing the impropriety of having hardworking taxpayers in West Virginia subsidizing poor people living near the Tesla factory. Doing housing assistance at the state level helps, but we have similar tensions, for California has its hard-hit areas with few jobs or only agricultural jobs. They too would pay proportional taxes to subsidize poor people living in the fast lane at absurd cost to the state. There aren?t many Section 8 houses around here, but for the cost of each one, the state could house ten families in the Central Valley. I don?t have the answers, but I do have a fun observation. Local builders are required to put in a certain percentage of units designed to be low cost, for lower income residents. So the do, but in every single case, regardless of what the legislatures intend, those small units always end up in the hands of Chinese businessmen, who use them as outpost offices and a private hotel room. Regardless of what the state government intended, the working poor continue to have to drive in from the central valley, which means more wear and tear on the roads, more junky cars crowding up the freeways, more Chinese businessmen flying in for a day or two to make deals at Tesla and Apple and such. They still haven?t figured out the solution to it all. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 14:18:54 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:18:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> Yes, I think if we go to space sooner, it will become more of a physical impetus to create post-human forms, because it will be so obvious we need them. SR Ballard > On Oct 23, 2018, at 3:38 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > I am not against habitats in free space ;-) Let's do both and let1000 > flowers bloom. But the psychological impact of lunar and planetary > outpost is higher (to me at least). > > Ultimately, space is not for biological humans, but for our > post-biological mind children. But we need to develop human presence > in space now, for the mental health of our species. Wee need to keep > the space dream alive, otherwise we'll stagnate and never become > posthumans. Therefore, let's not wait for posthuman mind children, but > let's go to space now. The Moon, Mars, L5, let's do all of that. >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:16 AM Keith Henson wrote: >> >> Giulio Prisco wrote: >> >>> Following the visionary cosmism of Nikolai Fedorov and the recently >> published final book of Stephen Hawking, I think the future of >> humankind must be out there among the stars... >> >> https://turingchurch.net/maximum-jailbreak-and-the-legacy-of-stephen-hawking-3a5773b9e6df >> >> From the link >> >>> With a fraction of what we spend for useless gadgets, games, apps, fashion, cosmetics, unhealthy food, boring entertainment, and dumb culture, we can start colonizing the moon and the planets now. We can, we must, and we will. >> >> Why? Neither the moon nor the planets around the Sun are suitable >> habit for humans and further, they are deep gravity wells. Planets >> are a horridly inefficient way to use mass. >> >> I would think the advantages of building rotating habitats in free >> space (over planetary surfaces was obvious to present day Extropians. >> It was to the people in the L5 Society clear back in the 1970s. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 sparge at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 14:36:11 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:36:11 -0400 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: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Lotteries are a way for legislators to avoid raising taxes, and it mostly > impacts the poor - just the reverse of progressive taxation that I prefer. > I'm OK with lotteries since they're completely voluntary. I'd prefer to lower taxes, preferably to zero, but neither major party nor the public is committed to cutting spending even a little. But tax cuts? Sure, bring 'em on! I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people in a > giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would hire > people to investigate charities and give most of it away. > I'd ensure that my family was taken care of first--not to the level of opulence, but to the point of not having to worry about food/clothing/shelter/medical/etc. After that I'd use it advocating for changes I'd like to see. In Mississippi we have a new lottery. The money goes to roads and bridges, > which the legislators have allowed to fall into severe disrepair. Better > than nothing, I reckon. > In Tennessee it goes to education. I've gotten a lot more back from grants to my children then I'll ever pay in lottery tickets. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Oct 23 14:38:52 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:38:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR Ballard Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: >...Yes, I think if we go to space sooner, it will become more of a physical impetus to create post-human forms, because it will be so obvious we need them. >...SR Ballard Ja. If we get sufficiently advanced in genetics, we could do selective breeding of humans, only with a cool twist. Perhaps we could selectively breed humans with minds like the genetic parents but with small spindly bodies more suited to reduced gravity and limited resources of an L5 station. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 14:48:45 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:48:45 -0500 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: One of my fanciful ideas from a good while back was to move the jobless to where there are jobs. No move? No gov. support. So how about moving people without jobs from expensive places to places like Mississippi where the living is easy and very cheap? They would get a far bigger bang for their buck here, though job prospects might not be any better here. Big bureaucratic nightmare, probably, to move people. Again, like the credit card idea, it depends on just how much money is saved. If I built a mansion, I'd keep a lot more than a million, Spike. Maybe I'd rent it out to nudist girls and visit often to collect rent. bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:40 AM Dave Sill wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Lotteries are a way for legislators to avoid raising taxes, and it mostly >> impacts the poor - just the reverse of progressive taxation that I prefer. >> > > I'm OK with lotteries since they're completely voluntary. I'd prefer to > lower taxes, preferably to zero, but neither major party nor the public is > committed to cutting spending even a little. But tax cuts? Sure, bring 'em > on! > > I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people in a >> giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would hire >> people to investigate charities and give most of it away. >> > > I'd ensure that my family was taken care of first--not to the level of > opulence, but to the point of not having to worry about > food/clothing/shelter/medical/etc. After that I'd use it advocating for > changes I'd like to see. > > In Mississippi we have a new lottery. The money goes to roads and >> bridges, which the legislators have allowed to fall into severe disrepair. >> Better than nothing, I reckon. >> > > In Tennessee it goes to education. I've gotten a lot more back from grants > to my children then I'll ever pay in lottery tickets. > > -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 giulio at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 15:04:24 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:04:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Or just upload people to suitable hardware. I think this will be the long-term solution. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:50 PM wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR > Ballard > Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking > Message-ID: > > > > >...Yes, I think if we go to space sooner, it will become more of a physical > impetus to create post-human forms, because it will be so obvious we need > them. > > >...SR Ballard > > > > Ja. If we get sufficiently advanced in genetics, we could do selective > breeding of humans, only with a cool twist. Perhaps we could selectively > breed humans with minds like the genetic parents but with small spindly > bodies more suited to reduced gravity and limited resources of an L5 > station. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Tue Oct 23 15:05:42 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:05:42 -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: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dave Sill Subject: Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: >>?I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people in a giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would hire people to investigate charities and give most of it away? BillW >?I'd ensure that my family was taken care of first--not to the level of opulence, but to the point of not having to worry about food/clothing/shelter/medical/etc. After that I'd use it advocating for changes I'd like to see? Dave Sill This exchange reminded me of a concept they explained to us in psychology. BillW is likely already an expert in this: Maslow?s hierarchy of needs. In retrospect I think BillW meant billion dollars rather than a million. A million dollars isn?t a lot of money. I have worked on projects with a million dollar a year budget: you need to watch your pennies on that small an effort, know exactly what you need to do, get er dun, get off the charge number as soon as you can, don?t camp out on that number (as we space guys used to say.) With a windfall billion, Dave is describing making sure all the comfort and safety stuff is taken care of, for himself and his family but doesn?t mention the status or self-actualization. I would conclude he is already good up there at the top. BillW talks about giving it away, which is aimed at self-actualization, which tells me he is already good in the comfort and safety part of the ladder. Every society has people everywhere on the ladder, from those struggling with self-actualization down to those struggling with getting sufficient food and clothing, never mind shelter. These latter are seen camping along the freeways everywhere right around here. As society gets more prosperous, the bulk of the wealth is created by those up near the top of that ladder (ah jeez, I think I just lit John Clark?s fuse with that comment (Johnny, we know already, me lad, we know.)) So the society which still has people at the bottom has all these people pumping more and more money into climbing near the top of that ladder. Those lower rungs are a lot cheaper, but there is a lot less money down there. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Oct 23 15:07:19 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 08:07:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008901d46ae2$18b6bfd0$4a243f70$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Giulio Prisco Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: >...Or just upload people to suitable hardware. I think this will be the long-term solution. OK. You first Giulio. {8^D spike From giulio at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 15:13:58 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:13:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <008901d46ae2$18b6bfd0$4a243f70$@rainier66.com> References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> <008901d46ae2$18b6bfd0$4a243f70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: If I could go first, or among the first, it would be a dream come true and a stellar conclusion of a 20/21 century life. Unfortunately I don't think I'll have the option, I expect uploading tech to arrive decades (or centuries) after I logoff. Perhaps in next life.. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:07 PM wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Giulio Prisco > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: > > > >...Or just upload people to suitable hardware. I think this will be the long-term solution. > > > > OK. You first Giulio. > > {8^D > > spike > > > > > From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 15:22:21 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:22:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: My question about living in space: what do you do about the radiation for the long term? Did you ever read Lois McMaster Bujold? Her space living humans were designed with four hands, not needing legs in space. Quaddies. bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: > Or just upload people to suitable hardware. I think this will be the > long-term solution. > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:50 PM wrote: > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf > Of SR > > Ballard > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking > > Message-ID: > > > > > > > > >...Yes, I think if we go to space sooner, it will become more of a > physical > > impetus to create post-human forms, because it will be so obvious we need > > them. > > > > >...SR Ballard > > > > > > > > Ja. If we get sufficiently advanced in genetics, we could do selective > > breeding of humans, only with a cool twist. Perhaps we could selectively > > breed humans with minds like the genetic parents but with small spindly > > bodies more suited to reduced gravity and limited resources of an L5 > > station. > > > > 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 Oct 23 15:48:08 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:48:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? In-Reply-To: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> References: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: BillW talks about giving it away, which is aimed at self-actualization, which tells me he is already good in the comfort and safety part of the ladder. spike Right - a few years ago when I was single I bought all the stuff I ever wanted - camera, stereo, PC, cooking gear, yard machines, plasma TV, and of course it was good that I never wanted a mansion, a yacht, etc. Now my main wants are books and I have enough money for those. Maybe there are those who are stuff-crazy and never get enough and are competing with friends ('the guy with the most stuff when he dies, wins'), but I think with age comes the realization that what is lacking is not more stuff but more and different experiences, which is not good for me because I can't travel (back, wife partially disabled). Thanks to the web I can go places I can't visit, and when virtual reality gear comes of age I hope that I will be here to enjoy it. Thanks to the web I can 'talk' to people all over the world. I had an aunt who would love email. You could not talk to her on the phone for long because she was deathly afraid of the telephone bill, even if I was paying. bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Dave Sill > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus > MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > > > > >>?I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people > in a giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would > hire people to investigate charities and give most of it away? BillW > > > > >?I'd ensure that my family was taken care of first--not to the level of > opulence, but to the point of not having to worry about > food/clothing/shelter/medical/etc. After that I'd use it advocating for > changes I'd like to see? Dave Sill > > > > > > This exchange reminded me of a concept they explained to us in > psychology. BillW is likely already an expert in this: Maslow?s hierarchy > of needs. > > > > In retrospect I think BillW meant billion dollars rather than a million. > A million dollars isn?t a lot of money. I have worked on projects with a > million dollar a year budget: you need to watch your pennies on that small > an effort, know exactly what you need to do, get er dun, get off the charge > number as soon as you can, don?t camp out on that number (as we space guys > used to say.) > > > > With a windfall billion, Dave is describing making sure all the comfort > and safety stuff is taken care of, for himself and his family but doesn?t > mention the status or self-actualization. I would conclude he is already > good up there at the top. BillW talks about giving it away, which is aimed > at self-actualization, which tells me he is already good in the comfort and > safety part of the ladder. > > > > Every society has people everywhere on the ladder, from those struggling > with self-actualization down to those struggling with getting sufficient > food and clothing, never mind shelter. These latter are seen camping along > the freeways everywhere right around here. > > > > As society gets more prosperous, the bulk of the wealth is created by > those up near the top of that ladder (ah jeez, I think I just lit John > Clark?s fuse with that comment (Johnny, we know already, me lad, we > know.)) So the society which still has people at the bottom has all these > people pumping more and more money into climbing near the top of that > ladder. Those lower rungs are a lot cheaper, but there is a lot less money > down there. > > > > 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 Tue Oct 23 16:01:57 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:01:57 -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: <00b601d46ae9$b9ffa490$2dfeedb0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 7:49 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? >?One of my fanciful ?If I built a mansion, I'd keep a lot more than a million, Spike. Maybe I'd rent it out to nudist girls and visit often to collect rent. bill w Now that?s the capitalist spirit BillW! I came up with an idea while I was writing up that free history lesson on Adam and Eve, how they negotiated there to start with in -4004, and how that came to be considered the first college. Most of us here have been to college, so we know the drill. Well, OK, to be precise: we engineering students don?t know the drill. But we have heard of the drill, from the normal students in other majors. We were studying actual? like? engineering, and reading? em? National Geographic. Not necessarily the National Geo part, if you get my drift. So. We know how certain businesses go together well. For instance, they combine vacation destinations with health spas: they get a coupla chiseled and enthusiastic exercise coaches (both genders) to coax the flabmeisters to move, that sorta thing, works great when combined with some attractive tourist destination, sort of a great excuse to go there, pretend they are doing this for health reasons rather than ogling the coaches. Eh, harmless fun, ja? So what if? we combine a university with a nudist colony! Oh we could make a buttload. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Tue Oct 23 16:28:04 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:28:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: Bill Wallace wrote: > My question about living in space: what do you do about the radiation for > the long term? Simple, you genetically engineer your space humans to be black. Not African black and not just the skin, but pitch-black and including the internal organs. Melanin, the same pigment that is in dark skin, is a radioprotective protein that not only shields DNA from ionizing radiation but also seems capable of using the energy in radiation to reduce NADH inside of living cells. Whenever you look at radioactively contaminated locations on earth like the Chernobyl reactor, one finds all the fungi are pitch black. Not only is melanin giving these fungi protection from the radiation, it is allowing the fungus to use the radiation in a manner similar to photosynthesis. These scientists put melanin into fungal cells that didn't have it and those fungi grew better in the presence of radiation than they did without radiation. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000457 "Exposure of melanin to ionizing radiation, and possibly other forms of electromagnetic radiation, changes its electronic properties. Melanized fungal cells manifested increased growth relative to non-melanized cells after exposure to ionizing radiation, raising intriguing questions about a potential role for melanin in energy capture and utilization." Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Tue Oct 23 16:37:50 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:37:50 -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: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:48 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? >>?BillW talks about giving it away, which is aimed at self-actualization, which tells me he is already good in the comfort and safety part of the ladder. spike >?Right - a few years ago when I was single I bought all the stuff I ever wanted - camera, stereo, PC, cooking gear, yard machines, plasma TV, and of course it was good that I never wanted a mansion, a yacht, etc. Now my main wants are books and I have enough money for those? Ja. The internet changed everything. It really did. Consider a lotta people in their young to mid working years, dreaming of retiring and (what?s the classic things they dream of) going on a sea voyage. Or going on the road in a motorhome, two classic busy-person dreams, ja? OK. So. What?s the first thing they discover? Go on a sea voyage, great food, lotsa bods hanging out by the pool, fun fun it is. For the first day or two. After that? boooooorrrrinnnnng? because there is no internet connection out there at sea. And even if there was, does it make a lick of sense to pay all that money to eat all that fine food and ogle the pool bods, then hole up in your cabin and surf the net? Why not just stay home if you?re going to do that? Go to a local upscale restaurant which is just as good, ogle the bods online, which is better. Go on the road? Hmmm, ok so you get to see the country. Sure, pardon me while I nap. You can get on Google Maps and cruise wherever you want and not have the risk of some drunken yahoo slamming into your shiny new motorhome as you ride those country roads. Books you vant? You vant zee books? Vee hef zee books. All the books you have time to read, right there in front of you right now. They don?t even cost much, or if your eyes are tired, just get online and listen to Ted Talks, oh what a day. What a time to be alive! >?You could not talk to her on the phone for long because she was deathly afraid of the telephone bill, even if I was paying. This is a big problem for people doing family history. The people I really need to talk to are almost all over 80. They have so much cool knowledge, but they generally don?t have or don?t use computers, and it is often such a struggle to get them to talk on the phone. They treat it like a hot potato. Costs money dontcha know. If you want to go visit in person, they love it: they will bal bla and yakkity yak your leg off all day, like there is no tomorrow. But you call on the phone, short choppy sentences, gotta keep that phone bill down. You can?t even convince them that your phone doesn?t charge by the minute, because theirs does which is why they seldom call out. I have one treasure chest of family history knowledge, age 88, whose phone still has the old rotary dial. Their ?long distance? calls still do cost money. Their local phone company still supports the old ways. West Virginia. Mountain mama. Don?t take me home, not there, please. There is no convincing some of these old ones that most phones are not connected to the wall by a wire and don?t charge by the minute. She has no computer, wouldn?t know what to do with one if she had it. Advice to the young ones among us: if you eeeeever think you might eeever ever take an interest in your family history, get on it now. The old ones are passing away. They know stuff. Talk to them. Call em, talk, listen, write down what they tell you. If you are not interested now, or are busy, call, talk, listen, write it down, file it away where you can find it 30 yrs from now. I did. The stuff I found out in my 20s is priceless and irreplaceable. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 17:05:40 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:05:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? In-Reply-To: <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> References: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Buy each of your old relatives a simple speech recorder. Maybe they will talk to it. bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:52 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:48 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus > MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? > > > > > >>?BillW talks about giving it away, which is aimed at > self-actualization, which tells me he is already good in the comfort and > safety part of the ladder. > > spike > > > > >?Right - a few years ago when I was single I bought all the stuff I ever > wanted - camera, stereo, PC, cooking gear, yard machines, plasma TV, and of > course it was good that I never wanted a mansion, a yacht, etc. Now my main > wants are books and I have enough money for those? > > Ja. The internet changed everything. It really did. Consider a lotta > people in their young to mid working years, dreaming of retiring and > (what?s the classic things they dream of) going on a sea voyage. Or going > on the road in a motorhome, two classic busy-person dreams, ja? > > OK. So. What?s the first thing they discover? Go on a sea voyage, great > food, lotsa bods hanging out by the pool, fun fun it is. For the first day > or two. After that? boooooorrrrinnnnng? because there is no internet > connection out there at sea. And even if there was, does it make a lick of > sense to pay all that money to eat all that fine food and ogle the pool > bods, then hole up in your cabin and surf the net? Why not just stay home > if you?re going to do that? Go to a local upscale restaurant which is just > as good, ogle the bods online, which is better. > > Go on the road? Hmmm, ok so you get to see the country. Sure, pardon me > while I nap. You can get on Google Maps and cruise wherever you want and > not have the risk of some drunken yahoo slamming into your shiny new > motorhome as you ride those country roads. > > Books you vant? You vant zee books? Vee hef zee books. All the books > you have time to read, right there in front of you right now. They don?t > even cost much, or if your eyes are tired, just get online and listen to > Ted Talks, oh what a day. What a time to be alive! > > >?You could not talk to her on the phone for long because she was deathly > afraid of the telephone bill, even if I was paying. > > This is a big problem for people doing family history. The people I > really need to talk to are almost all over 80. They have so much cool > knowledge, but they generally don?t have or don?t use computers, and it is > often such a struggle to get them to talk on the phone. They treat it like > a hot potato. Costs money dontcha know. > > If you want to go visit in person, they love it: they will bal bla and > yakkity yak your leg off all day, like there is no tomorrow. But you call > on the phone, short choppy sentences, gotta keep that phone bill down. You > can?t even convince them that your phone doesn?t charge by the minute, > because theirs does which is why they seldom call out. > > I have one treasure chest of family history knowledge, age 88, whose phone > still has the old rotary dial. Their ?long distance? calls still do cost > money. Their local phone company still supports the old ways. West > Virginia. Mountain mama. Don?t take me home, not there, please. There is > no convincing some of these old ones that most phones are not connected to > the wall by a wire and don?t charge by the minute. She has no computer, > wouldn?t know what to do with one if she had it. > > Advice to the young ones among us: if you eeeeever think you might eeever > ever take an interest in your family history, get on it now. The old ones > are passing away. They know stuff. Talk to them. Call em, talk, listen, > write down what they tell you. If you are not interested now, or are busy, > call, talk, listen, write it down, file it away where you can find it 30 > yrs from now. I did. The stuff I found out in my 20s is priceless and > irreplaceable. > > 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 lubkin at unreasonable.com Tue Oct 23 17:14:37 2018 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:14:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> John Clark wrote: >But if you think it's important, only 7 presidents have left office >with the government owing less money as a percentage of GDP than >when they entered the office. The are listed below, the first two >made by far the largest reductions: > > 1) Harry Truman, a Democrat > 2) Bill Clinton, a Democrat > 3) Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican > 4) Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat > 5) Richard Nixon, a Republican > 6) John Kennedy, a Democrat > 7) Jimmy Carter, a Democrat > >It's interesting that the conventional wisdom that the Democrats are >the spendthrift party and the Republicans are the conservative >fiscally prudent party is inconsistent with the facts. 1. Source? 2. Is this percentage of GDP *at the time* or of current GDP? Since debts are paid with current money, why does the GDP then matter? Why is percentage of GDP a better measure than dollars, or perhaps inflation-adjusted dollars? 3. Why is the president relevant? Why not who controls the House, or the House and the Senate, since all budgets originate in the House and must be approved by the Senate? (And therefore you'd want to consider who controlled those chambers throughout the presidency, not just at its end.) For 75% of Bill Clinton's presidency, both chambers were held by the Republicans. And for half of the eight years, Newt was Speaker. So there's a fair case he deserves more credit than Clinton. 4. They're both spendthrift parties. From a libertarian's perspective, it's asking do you want to be punched by Ruth Gordon, Mike Tyson, or George Foreman. You can argue Tyson vs. Foreman, or that Tyson is really Manny Pacquiao, but the gulf is so enormous between Ruth Gordon and anyone else that it's a pointless distinction. -- David. From spike at rainier66.com Tue Oct 23 17:34:38 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 10:34:38 -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: <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> References: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002801d46af6$ad0e6d90$072b48b0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com >?Call em, talk, listen, write down what they tell you. If you are not interested now, or are busy, call, talk, listen, write it down, file it away where you can find it 30 yrs from now. I did. The stuff I found out in my 20s is priceless and irreplaceable?spike Fun aside on that: I have a relative back in the old family seat, lived his whole life there. He isn?t old: 70 (ain?t it cool how we don?t consider 70 a bit old anymore? (As recently as 30 yrs ago, they made such a big deal about Reagan being in his 70s (but now most politicians are that old or older (that?s progress!)))) This relative lived right there the whole time, became a history teacher for high school, did that for over 40 yrs, retired at 65 and continues as a substitute. This guy, who knew so much? had no computer. Didn?t know how to use one. I talked to him on the phone and we could text each other, but I kept getting on him, telling him it is too hard to communicate using that silly texting on a phone. We have ten digits. It just seems so wrong to use eight of them, really the best ones, to support the keyboard. So wrong is this! I didn?t even resort to the shaming part: this guy was teaching history? without an internet connection. How the hell does one keep up without the internet? Reading books? Paper ones? I think not! So I kept on him thru voice phone calls, I kept up the old: Pal ya just gotta get at least email, you really do. I can?t send you photos without it, you have no access to the family archives I set up, you can?t keep up with advances in your own field because people don?t write for paper magazines much, your grandchildren may not use email but your children probably do and we email users aren?t going to text you photos because you can?t see anything on a damn phone! You need a computer and youuuuu neeeeed iiiinterneeeet, etc and so on and on I nagged my own beleaguered cousin for three years or more. He offered this flimsy excuse he didn?t know how, so I convinced him to get his grandchildren to teach him, and he?s a smart guy, so last month he did it. Got a computer and a minimal internet connection, I coached him into a free gmail account. Well now. Remember when the internet was coming alive in the early 90s and that heady feeling of gaining 20 IQ points? Imagine coming into that world now, when it is sooooo much more advanced with waaaaay more bods to ogle and the other stuff that is available now, and that guy who was until last month TEACHING HISTORY WITHOUT INTERNET is now realizing how much he passed up in the last 25 years. Now I can imagine what he is doing right now: the National Geographic magazines went into the trash (even that sizzling Sept 1957 issue) and now I can?t get his attention at all. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 18:46:28 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:46:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? In-Reply-To: <002801d46af6$ad0e6d90$072b48b0$@rainier66.com> References: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> <002801d46af6$ad0e6d90$072b48b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: A followup to my 'get a speech recorder' comment. Once there were machines in public places where you could get therapy. They were based on Carl Rogers' ideas of how the therapist should act, which was mostly to repeat what the client said. So you put your money in the machine and say: "I am having a lot of trouble with my depression and need some help." machine - "Depressed, eh? Please tell me how you feel about that." Rather than thinking this is a really dumb way to go about therapy, it actually works, if by work you mean getting the client to keep talking and giving you information about feelings etc You never did get anything out of the machine as far as diagnoses, what to do now, or anything. One of my profs pulled this on me and I just kept on talking and getting nothing out of him but 'yeah', 'good', 'umhumm'. Now write a program for Siri or some such. Program it to do exactly that - say unhuh, go on, tell me more, etc. It could be video or just audio. With your relatives, it might make tons of difference to have a voice egging you on rather than just staring at a little machine. I would not be surprised to find that there are already programs like this out there. bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:45 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* spike at rainier66.com > > > > >?Call em, talk, listen, write down what they tell you. If you are not > interested now, or are busy, call, talk, listen, write it down, file it > away where you can find it 30 yrs from now. I did. The stuff I found out > in my 20s is priceless and irreplaceable?spike > > > > > > Fun aside on that: I have a relative back in the old family seat, lived > his whole life there. He isn?t old: 70 (ain?t it cool how we don?t > consider 70 a bit old anymore? (As recently as 30 yrs ago, they made such a > big deal about Reagan being in his 70s (but now most politicians are that > old or older (that?s progress!)))) > > > > This relative lived right there the whole time, became a history teacher > for high school, did that for over 40 yrs, retired at 65 and continues as a > substitute. This guy, who knew so much? had no computer. Didn?t know how > to use one. I talked to him on the phone and we could text each other, but > I kept getting on him, telling him it is too hard to communicate using that > silly texting on a phone. We have ten digits. It just seems so wrong to > use eight of them, really the best ones, to support the keyboard. So wrong > is this! > > > > I didn?t even resort to the shaming part: this guy was teaching history? > without an internet connection. How the hell does one keep up without the > internet? Reading books? Paper ones? I think not! > > > > So I kept on him thru voice phone calls, I kept up the old: Pal ya just > gotta get at least email, you really do. I can?t send you photos without > it, you have no access to the family archives I set up, you can?t keep up > with advances in your own field because people don?t write for paper > magazines much, your grandchildren may not use email but your children > probably do and we email users aren?t going to text you photos because you > can?t see anything on a damn phone! You need a computer and youuuuu > neeeeed iiiinterneeeet, etc and so on and on I nagged my own beleaguered > cousin for three years or more. > > > > He offered this flimsy excuse he didn?t know how, so I convinced him to > get his grandchildren to teach him, and he?s a smart guy, so last month he > did it. Got a computer and a minimal internet connection, I coached him > into a free gmail account. > > > > Well now. Remember when the internet was coming alive in the early 90s > and that heady feeling of gaining 20 IQ points? Imagine coming into that > world now, when it is sooooo much more advanced with waaaaay more bods to > ogle and the other stuff that is available now, and that guy who was until > last month TEACHING HISTORY WITHOUT INTERNET is now realizing how much he > passed up in the last 25 years. Now I can imagine what he is doing right > now: the National Geographic magazines went into the trash (even that > sizzling Sept 1957 issue) and now I can?t get his attention at all. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 19:41:58 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:41:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?From_Quantum_Computing_to_a_Quantum_Internet?= =?utf-8?b?4oCUYSBSb2FkbWFw?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 PM John Grigg wrote: *> Quantum computers are making all the headlines these days, but quantum > communication technology may actually be closer to practical > implementation.*I don't see what point there would be in making a > I don't see the point of building a Quantum Internet unless Quantum Computers were close to practical implementation because its only advantage is its ability to supply secure encryption even if your opponent has a Quantum Computer. Incidentally American companies are starting to fall behind in the race to build the first practical Quantum Computer because there are less than a thousand experts in this field in the entire world and Trump's State Department is reluctant to approve visas to foreign scientists so they can work in the USA. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/technology/quantum-computing-jobs-immigration-visas.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Technology John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 20:07:23 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:07:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:22 PM David Lubkin wrote: * > Is this percentage of GDP *at the time* or of current GDP?* They say there are no dumb questions so I will ask one of my own; How could Harry Truman be expected to know what our current GDP is? *>Since **debts are paid with current money, why does the GDP then matter?* > If you really insist on using our current GDP in these statistics then Truman did a even BETTER job of reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP because it's far larger now than it was in Truman's day. A modern politician could play the same trick and say our current debt is a trivial percentage of the GDP we'll have after the Nanotechnology Singularity so don't worry about it. And there would actually be some truth in that because even without a Singularity a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow and that's why people borrow money and that's why interest exists. But are you sure you want to play that game with economic statistics? It's certainly not what a fiscal conservative would do. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Tue Oct 23 20:11:46 2018 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:11:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BCF8082.6020003@zaiboc.net> Bill W wrote: "Are AIs somehow to be equipped with superhuman emotions? What would that mean?" Yes, they are, but not by us. And of course, we have no idea what that would mean. This is, at least to me, the entire point of AIs: They will be our successors, the next generation of self-aware, intelligent beings. I think it's a big mistake to use the concept of current computers and current software when thinking about the AI systems of the future. That's like thinking of humans purely in terms of molecules. There are many layers of complexity, built on one another, between the molecules and their actions, and Bob the Quantity Surveyor and his concerns about his tax return. Yes, they are connected, and one is actually built from the other, but you can't really talk about one in terms of the other. Advanced AI's won't simply be programs running on microprocessors, just as we aren't simply ribosomes joining nucleotides together. They will have many layers of complexity, just as we do. So when considering advanced AIs, thinking about our current computers and their software is just as relevant as thinking about how ribosomes work when you're considering Bob's ability to complete his tax returns. Saying "AIs will never have emotions because computers aren't capable of feeling emotions" is like saying "Bob will never be able to understand his tax forms because ribosomes aren't capable of reading tax forms". -- Ben Zaiboc From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 20:16:04 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:16:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: John Clark wrote: a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow and that's why people borrow money and that's why interest exists. ------------ Is this why some people I've heard say that a balanced budget is a bad idea? That debt is a good thing? bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:11 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:22 PM David Lubkin > wrote: > > * > Is this percentage of GDP *at the time* or of current GDP?* > > > They say there are no dumb questions so I will ask one of my own; How > could Harry Truman be expected to know what our current GDP is? > > *>Since **debts are paid with current money, why does the GDP then >> matter?* >> > > If you really insist on using our current GDP in these statistics then > Truman did a even BETTER job of reducing the debt as a percentage of GDP > because it's far larger now than it was in Truman's day. A modern > politician could play the same trick and say our current debt is a trivial > percentage of the GDP we'll have after the Nanotechnology Singularity so > don't worry about it. And there would actually be some truth in that > because even without a Singularity a dollar today is worth more than a > dollar tomorrow and that's why people borrow money and that's why interest > exists. But are you sure you want to play that game with economic > statistics? It's certainly not what a fiscal conservative would do. > > 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 Tue Oct 23 20:16:35 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:16:35 -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: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> <002801d46af6$ad0e6d90$072b48b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004e01d46b0d$4ca27890$e5e769b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 11:46 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? A followup to my 'get a speech recorder' comment. Once there were machines in public places where you could get therapy. They were based on Carl Rogers' ideas of how the therapist should act? Ja, Eliza: http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3 This was a fun toy back in the late 70s. Some yahoo rigged up a version of Eliza using teen-speak and sent it into a teen hangout. Since Eliza came and went before they were born, they didn?t realize they were talking to themselves. Regarding therapy: I am convinced there is something very therapeutic about hearing oneself talk, and there is something very educational about trying to educate someone else; while you explain yourself to others, you explain yourself to yourself. Eliza is better in some ways than an actual therapist, because I will tell myself things I won?t tell anyone else under any circumstances. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 20:57:33 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:57:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: <1E1CD10D-BFFB-4512-AC00-CAF43EE8487D@gmail.com> On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:16 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > John Clark wrote: > a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow and that's why people borrow money and that's why interest exists. > ------------ > Is this why some people I've heard say that a balanced budget is a bad idea? That debt is a good thing? bill w Cutting in a discussion I will try to follow more closely, debt financing has the immediate benefit that the government doesn?t raise taxes right away. This creates perverse incentives since it will then borrow more than it would tax all else being equal. (Taxes being more direct affect the taxed party faster.) Also, since it?s harder to forecast who will be taxed in the future ? will the government, say, impose a higher tax on X rather than Y when it comes time to pay down (some of) the debt (or use inflation or other measures) ? it creates more uncertainty. Debt also binds the lender to taxation ? creating a base of support for increased taxation ? and to spending ? net lenders often want to lend again. Again, more perverse incentives. This isn?t a praise of taxation. Taxation is simply a less perverse form of coercion than the other two major forms of government funding: debt and inflation. (Inflation is probably the worst of the trio since it tends to distort the overall price system and hurts those on fixed incomes.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 20:57:37 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:57:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <5BCF8082.6020003@zaiboc.net> References: <5BCF8082.6020003@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I think we have devolved to the problem of consciousness. How could a computer of any complexity experience fear? It can be told that certain parts of the limbic system are active, and certain behaviors may follow, but the human experiences of it cannot, in my opinion, be described even to a fellow human - only in a global sense. Explain to someone how a piece of music affects you. Or why a certain women is not pretty at all but is highly attractive. Of course that future AI may have no use at all for emotions or something similar like we do. As Sapolsky has shown, if you cut off the prefrontal cortex from the limbic system, decisions which are made tend to be awful and most dither and cannot even make them. So we cannot do without them. I have no opinion on AI and self-awareness. bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:22 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Bill W wrote: > > "Are AIs somehow to be equipped with superhuman emotions? What would > that mean?" > > > Yes, they are, but not by us. And of course, we have no idea what that > would mean. This is, at least to me, the entire point of AIs: They will > be our successors, the next generation of self-aware, intelligent beings. > > I think it's a big mistake to use the concept of current computers and > current software when thinking about the AI systems of the future. > That's like thinking of humans purely in terms of molecules. There are > many layers of complexity, built on one another, between the molecules > and their actions, and Bob the Quantity Surveyor and his concerns about > his tax return. Yes, they are connected, and one is actually built from > the other, but you can't really talk about one in terms of the other. > > Advanced AI's won't simply be programs running on microprocessors, just > as we aren't simply ribosomes joining nucleotides together. They will > have many layers of complexity, just as we do. > > So when considering advanced AIs, thinking about our current computers > and their software is just as relevant as thinking about how ribosomes > work when you're considering Bob's ability to complete his tax returns. > > Saying "AIs will never have emotions because computers aren't capable of > feeling emotions" is like saying "Bob will never be able to understand > his tax forms because ribosomes aren't capable of reading tax forms". > > -- > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 20:58:40 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 15:58:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? In-Reply-To: <004e01d46b0d$4ca27890$e5e769b0$@rainier66.com> References: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> <002901d46aee$bd899c60$389cd520$@rainier66.com> <002801d46af6$ad0e6d90$072b48b0$@rainier66.com> <004e01d46b0d$4ca27890$e5e769b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Yes - but do you think that your elder relatives would use one? bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 3:49 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2018 11:46 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus > MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? > > > > A followup to my 'get a speech recorder' comment. > > > > Once there were machines in public places where you could get therapy. > They were based on Carl Rogers' ideas of how the therapist should act? > > > > > > > > Ja, Eliza: > > > > http://www.manifestation.com/neurotoys/eliza.php3 > > > > This was a fun toy back in the late 70s. > > > > Some yahoo rigged up a version of Eliza using teen-speak and sent it into > a teen hangout. Since Eliza came and went before they were born, they > didn?t realize they were talking to themselves. > > > > Regarding therapy: I am convinced there is something very therapeutic > about hearing oneself talk, and there is something very educational about > trying to educate someone else; while you explain yourself to others, you > explain yourself to yourself. > > > > Eliza is better in some ways than an actual therapist, because I will tell > myself things I won?t tell anyone else under any circumstances. > > > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 23:15:16 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:15:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:40 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow and that's why people >> borrow money and that's why interest exists. > > > *> Is this why some people I've heard say that a balanced budget is a bad > idea? That debt is a good thing? bill w* > Yes I think so. It's not necessary or even desirable for a government to balance its budjet each and every year. Good thing too because except for a couple of years during the Clinton administration the USA has spent more money then it had every year since 1835, and so has nearly every country on the planet, and yet we survive and still have a civilization. Government borrowing can be a very good thing, particularly in times of economic downturn, if they had massively started to borrow money 1929 would be known as the year of a garden variety recession but instead they thought that was a good time to reduce the debt and so 1929 is known as the year a huge decade long global economic catastrophe started. But of course you can overdo debt just like everything else. With Trump the national debt is today 107% of GDP, and that's the highest its been since 1946 when we were paying off the cost of the second world war which we couldn't have fought if we hadn't borrowed money. It probably hasn't escaped your notice that today the Republicans control the Executive, Legislative and, as of a few weeks ago, the Judicial branches of government. And those are all the branches there are. But is 107% too high? I honestly don't know, but I do know we're not today in a economic downturn and we're not paying off a world war. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 23 23:46:59 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 18:46:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: Thanks John - now the question is: in terms of a household budget, is a balanced budget a good thing? (Ignoring mortgages, since few can put down the cash. Another question: if they could, should they? They lose the advantage of paying back money that is of a lesser value because of inflation, but gain the investing of money that would have gone to a mortgage.) bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:20 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:40 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >>a dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow and that's why >>> people borrow money and that's why interest exists. >> >> >> *> Is this why some people I've heard say that a balanced budget is a bad >> idea? That debt is a good thing? bill w* >> > > Yes I think so. It's not necessary or even desirable for a government to > balance its budjet each and every year. Good thing too because except for a > couple of years during the Clinton administration the USA has spent more > money then it had every year since 1835, and so has nearly every country on > the planet, and yet we survive and still have a civilization. Government > borrowing can be a very good thing, particularly in times of economic > downturn, if they had massively started to borrow money 1929 would be known > as the year of a garden variety recession but instead they thought that > was a good time to reduce the debt and so 1929 is known as the year a huge > decade long global economic catastrophe started. > > But of course you can overdo debt just like everything else. With Trump > the national debt is today 107% of GDP, and that's the highest its been > since 1946 when we were paying off the cost of the second world war which > we couldn't have fought if we hadn't borrowed money. It probably hasn't > escaped your notice that today the Republicans control the Executive, > Legislative and, as of a few weeks ago, the Judicial branches of > government. And those are all the branches there are. > > But is 107% too high? I honestly don't know, but I do know we're not today > in a economic downturn and we're not paying off a world war. > > John K Clark > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 00:00:59 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:00:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Short of re-engineering humans (including uploading, which is "re-engineering" onto a silicon substrate), add sufficient radiation shielding to reduce background radiation aboard to background radiation levels at Earth's surface. 10 microseverts per day, was it? This requires quite a bit of mass, but moving quite a bit of mass through a zero-g environment is far simpler than many other things we discuss on this list. We're talking "large asteroid" range, far smaller than even the Moon, so this could be done with today's technology (though it would cost in the millions or billions of dollars). On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > My question about living in space: what do you do about the radiation for the long term? Did you ever read Lois McMaster Bujold? Her space living humans were designed with four hands, not needing legs in space. Quaddies. > > bill w > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: >> >> Or just upload people to suitable hardware. I think this will be the >> long-term solution. >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:50 PM wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of SR >> > Ballard >> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking >> > Message-ID: >> > >> > >> > >> > >...Yes, I think if we go to space sooner, it will become more of a physical >> > impetus to create post-human forms, because it will be so obvious we need >> > them. >> > >> > >...SR Ballard >> > >> > >> > >> > Ja. If we get sufficiently advanced in genetics, we could do selective >> > breeding of humans, only with a cool twist. Perhaps we could selectively >> > breed humans with minds like the genetic parents but with small spindly >> > bodies more suited to reduced gravity and limited resources of an L5 >> > station. >> > >> > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 00:13:04 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:13:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: adrian wrote: This requires quite a bit of mass, but moving quite a bit of mass through a zero-g environment is far simpler than many other things we discuss on this list. We're talking "large asteroid" range, far smaller than even the Moon, so this could be done with today's technology (though it would cost in the millions or billions of dollars). ---------------- So the scifi stories I read will come true: we will move asteroids into Earth orbit, and create large tunnels to live in, providing radiation protection, and then tow asteroids which are full of water to supply the colony (like one of Asimov's stories where they got a water asteroid (if that's what you call it) from the rings of Saturn). I suppose metals and even oil could also be supplied by asteroids. I doubt the 'oil' part, but what do I know? Good stuff! bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:04 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > Short of re-engineering humans (including uploading, which is > "re-engineering" onto a silicon substrate), add sufficient radiation > shielding to reduce background radiation aboard to background > radiation levels at Earth's surface. 10 microseverts per day, was it? > > This requires quite a bit of mass, but moving quite a bit of mass > through a zero-g environment is far simpler than many other things we > discuss on this list. We're talking "large asteroid" range, far > smaller than even the Moon, so this could be done with today's > technology (though it would cost in the millions or billions of > dollars). > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:16 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > > My question about living in space: what do you do about the radiation > for the long term? Did you ever read Lois McMaster Bujold? Her space > living humans were designed with four hands, not needing legs in space. > Quaddies. > > > > bill w > > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:15 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: > >> > >> Or just upload people to suitable hardware. I think this will be the > >> long-term solution. > >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 4:50 PM wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: extropy-chat On > Behalf Of SR > >> > Ballard > >> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen > Hawking > >> > Message-ID: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >...Yes, I think if we go to space sooner, it will become more of a > physical > >> > impetus to create post-human forms, because it will be so obvious we > need > >> > them. > >> > > >> > >...SR Ballard > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Ja. If we get sufficiently advanced in genetics, we could do > selective > >> > breeding of humans, only with a cool twist. Perhaps we could > selectively > >> > breed humans with minds like the genetic parents but with small > spindly > >> > bodies more suited to reduced gravity and limited resources of an L5 > >> > station. > >> > > >> > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 00:35:42 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:35:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:29 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > adrian wrote: This requires quite a bit of mass, but moving quite a bit of mass through a zero-g environment is far simpler than many other things we discuss on this list. We're talking "large asteroid" range, far smaller than even the Moon, so this could be done with today's technology (though it would cost in the millions or billions of dollars). > ---------------- > So the scifi stories I read will come true: we will move asteroids into Earth orbit, and create large tunnels to live in, providing radiation protection, and then tow asteroids which are full of water to supply the colony (like one of Asimov's stories where they got a water asteroid (if that's what you call it) from the rings of Saturn). I suppose metals and even oil could also be supplied by asteroids. I doubt the 'oil' part, but what do I know? Metals, no question, and this is a strong contender for why we might start moving the rocks (mining all that platinum, and getting rich from selling it even after the market crashes as a result). Oil would have to be synthesized - but it is unlikely that automobiles as we know them on Earth would be in as much demand, so much less oil would be needed too. From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 00:51:19 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 17:51:19 -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: I would invest almost all of it. Part (most, at first) in making sure there's enough income to make sure the money's still there and growing year after year, part in various projects to make sure I'm still there (in some form, not just "remembered") in a few hundred years. On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:24 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Lotteries are a way for legislators to avoid raising taxes, and it mostly impacts the poor - just the reverse of progressive taxation that I prefer. > > I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people in a giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would hire people to investigate charities and give most of it away. > > In Mississippi we have a new lottery. The money goes to roads and bridges, which the legislators have allowed to fall into severe disrepair. Better than nothing, I reckon. > > bill w > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:38 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> So what I want to know is, how hackproof are these lotteries? If you >> could rig the win and no one picks up that it's rigged, you've got the >> pot, free and clear. These really big pots seem like they'd be worth >> some criminal mastermind's time to rig - just once, so they don't get >> caught from repetition (a gamble in itself). >> >> I am well aware that such a "hack" would involve physical interface to >> the machines, making it more like a heist. But for tens or hundreds >> of millions of dollars per participant, one could get some pretty >> skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot >> got this large? >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:45 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 01:01:46 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:01:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: adrian wrote - Oil would have to be synthesized - but it is unlikely that automobiles as we know them on Earth would be in as much demand, so much less oil would be needed too. What about the asteroid belt? Isn't it the remains of a planet, or thought to be? If so, life might have developed on it and so some remains could have oil. That would be a discovery to top them all. bill w On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:42 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:29 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > adrian wrote: This requires quite a bit of mass, but moving quite a bit > of mass through a zero-g environment is far simpler than many other things > we discuss on this list. We're talking "large asteroid" range, far smaller > than even the Moon, so this could be done with today's technology (though > it would cost in the millions or billions of dollars). > > ---------------- > > So the scifi stories I read will come true: we will move asteroids into > Earth orbit, and create large tunnels to live in, providing radiation > protection, and then tow asteroids which are full of water to supply the > colony (like one of Asimov's stories where they got a water asteroid (if > that's what you call it) from the rings of Saturn). I suppose metals and > even oil could also be supplied by asteroids. I doubt the 'oil' part, but > what do I know? > > Metals, no question, and this is a strong contender for why we might > start moving the rocks (mining all that platinum, and getting rich > from selling it even after the market crashes as a result). Oil would > have to be synthesized - but it is unlikely that automobiles as we > know them on Earth would be in as much demand, so much less oil would > be needed too. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 01:05:13 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 20:05:13 -0500 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: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:59 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > I would invest almost all of it. Part (most, at first) in making sure > there's enough income to make sure the money's still there and growing year > after year, part in various projects to make sure I'm still there (in > some form, not just "remembered") in a few hundred years. > What if the banking system crashed? Nobody says that it can't. Then the first people they would be taking away money from would be dead people! Dead people don't complain. Of course the lawyers would. bill w > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:24 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > > Lotteries are a way for legislators to avoid raising taxes, and it > mostly impacts the poor - just the reverse of progressive taxation that I > prefer. > > > > I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people in > a giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would > hire people to investigate charities and give most of it away. > > > > In Mississippi we have a new lottery. The money goes to roads and > bridges, which the legislators have allowed to fall into severe disrepair. > Better than nothing, I reckon. > > > > bill w > > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 9:38 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> > >> So what I want to know is, how hackproof are these lotteries? If you > >> could rig the win and no one picks up that it's rigged, you've got the > >> pot, free and clear. These really big pots seem like they'd be worth > >> some criminal mastermind's time to rig - just once, so they don't get > >> caught from repetition (a gamble in itself). > >> > >> I am well aware that such a "hack" would involve physical interface to > >> the machines, making it more like a heist. But for tens or hundreds > >> of millions of dollars per participant, one could get some pretty > >> skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot > >> got this large? > >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:45 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 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 02:34:43 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 19:34:43 -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: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:19 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:59 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: >> I would invest almost all of it. Part (most, at first) in making sure >> there's enough income to make sure the money's still there and growing year after year, part in various projects to make sure I'm still there (in some form, not just "remembered") in a few hundred years. > > What if the banking system crashed? Nobody says that it can't. Then the first people they would be taking away money from would be dead people! Dead people don't complain. Of course the lawyers would. Part of the investment would be to try to set up so that whoever's guarding my body and estate has motivation to do their jobs, rather than just loot my estate and ditch my corpse, long enough for me to come back. I hear Alcor's doing a good job of this for its patients so far. From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 06:43:36 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 23:43:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <2F4AFA99-ED21-4807-BE25-9549617D400B@gmail.com> <005701d46ade$1ec83bf0$5c58b3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:08 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > adrian wrote - Oil would > have to be synthesized - but it is unlikely that automobiles as we > know them on Earth would be in as much demand, so much less oil would be needed too. > > What about the asteroid belt? Isn't it the remains of a planet, or thought to be? If so, life might have developed on it and so some remains could have oil. That would be a discovery to top them all. It would, and while what we know about the asteroids does not 100% preclude the possibility, it seems rather unlikely. For one, if it is the remains of a planet, it was probably shattered long enough ago that it did not have enough time to develop the kind of life that becomes oil. From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 13:07:39 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:07:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] libertarianism In-Reply-To: References: <004801d467d7$aa9c0c10$ffd42430$@rainier66.com> <201810231714.w9NHEkiV024593@hlin.zia.io> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 7:52 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Thanks John - now the question is: in terms of a household budget, is a > balanced budget a good thing? (Ignoring mortgages, since few can put down > the cash. > It's not just a house, few pay cash for a car either, at least not for a new car. And then there are student loans which sometimes can be a good idea but can get out of hand. And then there is big credit card debt that almost always gets out of hand because of the huge interest demanded. So virtually no household lives on a balanced budget, even billionaires borrow money, and often this all works out for the best but sometimes it doesn't so care must be taken. > > Another question: if they could, should they? They lose the advantage > of paying back money that is of a lesser value because of inflation, > It's not just inflation. Due to technological advances there will be more real money around in the future even after the effects of inflation have been subtracted out, so it will be easier to pay off debt. Because of this I will make a prediction, if the idea of a technological singularity enters the zeitgeist to a greater degree than it has now it will cause interest rates to go up. And there is another good reason to borrow, you know for sure you're alive and can enjoy one dollar today, but you don't know for sure you'll be alive tomorrow to enjoy 2 dollars. John K Clark PS: Speaking of money, I didn't win the billion dollar lottery, so much for my grand plans. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 14:16:39 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:16:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Parking a car with 12 neurons Message-ID: A machine with only 12 artificial neurons can now park a car. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/vuot-aip102318.php Millions of people in the USA make their living driving trucks and cabs and busses, they will soon be out of a job and they will not like that one bit. And most of them live in red states. That's why I say it would not be wise for libertarians to stick their head in the sand and pretend they can continue on with their old ideas just as they always have and society will not tear itself apart. As Bob Dylan said, the times they are changing. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 14:52:25 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:52:25 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Parking a car with 12 neurons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many people can't park a car. Perhaps they have less than 12 neurons? Technology creates jobs, but it eliminates jobs much faster. In a few decades, the majority of people won't have a job, because there aren't enough jobs that need human workers. I don't see how future societies will survive without introducing a basic income that allows everyone to live a modest but decent life, without needing to steal and kill to survive. This is not incompatible with libertarianism, but it's another kind of libertarianism. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:20 PM John Clark wrote: > > A machine with only 12 artificial neurons can now park a car. > > https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/vuot-aip102318.php > > Millions of people in the USA make their living driving trucks and cabs and busses, they will soon be out of a job and they will not like that one bit. And most of them live in red states. That's why I say it would not be wise for libertarians to stick their head in the sand and pretend they can continue on with their old ideas just as they always have and society will not tear itself apart. > As Bob Dylan said, the times they are changing. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 15:16:53 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 10:16:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Parking a car with 12 neurons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is not incompatible with libertarianism, but it's another kind of libertarianism. giulio Libertarianism is about freedom to do what you want, within limits. It is not about doing what you want and divorcing yourself from the rest of humanity. How free is a person who cannot put food on the table for his family? There may be nothing more noble than enabling some other person to have more freedom, even if it infringes on some of yours. "Am I my brother's keeper?" YES! bill w On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:56 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: > Many people can't park a car. Perhaps they have less than 12 neurons? > > Technology creates jobs, but it eliminates jobs much faster. In a few > decades, the majority of people won't have a job, because there aren't > enough jobs that need human workers. I don't see how future societies > will survive without introducing a basic income that allows everyone > to live a modest but decent life, without needing to steal and kill to > survive. This is not incompatible with libertarianism, but it's > another kind of libertarianism. > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:20 PM John Clark wrote: > > > > A machine with only 12 artificial neurons can now park a car. > > > > https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/vuot-aip102318.php > > > > Millions of people in the USA make their living driving trucks and cabs > and busses, they will soon be out of a job and they will not like that one > bit. And most of them live in red states. That's why I say it would not be > wise for libertarians to stick their head in the sand and pretend they can > continue on with their old ideas just as they always have and society will > not tear itself apart. > > As Bob Dylan said, the times they are changing. > > > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 15:34:26 2018 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:34:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Parking a car with 12 neurons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Libertarianism is about freedom to do what you want, within limits. > Yes, it's about doing what you want so long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others. It is not about doing what you want and divorcing yourself from the rest of > humanity. > No, but if that's what you want, that's OK, too. > How free is a person who cannot put food on the table for his family? > One can be both free and poor. > There may be nothing more noble than enabling some other person to have > more freedom, even if it infringes on some of yours. > As long as it's truly voluntary. But that's not a rights infringement. Wealth and freedom aren't interchangeable. "Am I my brother's keeper?" YES! > Sure, as long he wants your help. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 15:36:18 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:36:18 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Personal consciousness as a strange attractor in the mindscape Message-ID: Personal consciousness as a strange attractor in the mindscape I?m writing this rather chaotic self-brainstorm to try and improve the treatment of consciousness in my book draft... https://turingchurch.net/personal-consciousness-as-a-strange-attractor-in-the-mindscape-7c418d359107 From kryonica at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 15:50:38 2018 From: kryonica at gmail.com (Cryonica) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 16:50:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Parking a car with 12 neurons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9FFBF515-0470-4B4A-8223-40933D98CE76@gmail.com> I only have 11 neurons. Parking a car has always been a problem. I sold mine 2 years ago. Its metallic paint had been repeatedly damaged by poor parking. I demand self-driving vehicles. And a basic income so that I won?t have to worry about destitution. What a basic income will ensure is first of all the end of the anxiety of losing your job or your income. The anxiety related to survival. To the danger of the exploitation that affects the destitute. They have no bargaining power. Those with means can treat them as they please. Hence slavery and harassment. For those of us with less than 12 neurons, a BI is the one way to ensure our freedom, dignity and quality of life in a world in which jobs will become luxuries as rare as palaces, clean clothes and meat once were. As Virginia Woolf wrote: we must have a room of our own and ?500 pounds a year - or their 2100 equivalent. No BI means a monopoly on dignity and security for the haves. A nightmare for everybody else. How could such almost universal misery be justified in a world of practically zero cost manufacturing and jaw-dropping abundance? > On 24 Oct 2018, at 15:52, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > Many people can't park a car. Perhaps they have less than 12 neurons? > > Technology creates jobs, but it eliminates jobs much faster. In a few > decades, the majority of people won't have a job, because there aren't > enough jobs that need human workers. I don't see how future societies > will survive without introducing a basic income that allows everyone > to live a modest but decent life, without needing to steal and kill to > survive. This is not incompatible with libertarianism, but it's > another kind of libertarianism. > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 4:20 PM John Clark wrote: >> >> A machine with only 12 artificial neurons can now park a car. >> >> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-10/vuot-aip102318.php >> >> Millions of people in the USA make their living driving trucks and cabs and busses, they will soon be out of a job and they will not like that one bit. And most of them live in red states. That's why I say it would not be wise for libertarians to stick their head in the sand and pretend they can continue on with their old ideas just as they always have and society will not tear itself apart. >> As Bob Dylan said, the times they are changing. >> >> John K Clark >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 16:27:24 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:27:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Parking a car with 12 neurons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 10:39 AM Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:20 AM William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Libertarianism is about freedom to do what you want, within limits. >> > > Yes, it's about doing what you want so long as it doesn't infringe the > rights of others. > > It is not about doing what you want and divorcing yourself from the rest >> of humanity. >> > > No, but if that's what you want, that's OK, too. > Yes, it's OK if you don't take anything at all from society. If you do you have obligations to that society. > > >> How free is a person who cannot put food on the table for his family? >> > > One can be both free and poor. > If one cannot feed the children they are VERY poor and should get > assistance from all of us. > >> There may be nothing more noble than enabling some other person to have >> more freedom, even if it infringes on some of yours. >> > > As long as it's truly voluntary. But that's not a rights infringement. > Wealth and freedom aren't interchangeable. > > "Am I my brother's keeper?" YES! >> > > Sure, as long he wants your help. > If he doesn't want my help, he can starve, but I'll feed his family. > That's right out of Heinlein. > > -Dave\bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 17:13:57 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:13:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Parking a car with 12 neurons In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:40 AM Dave Sill wrote: > >>How free is a person who cannot put food on the table for his family? >> > > >One can be both free and poor. > You can't be free and dead, and before they starve to death people are going to start to behave very very unpleasantly. Libertarians and anybody else that ignores that fact does so at their peril. > As long as it's truly voluntary. But that's not a rights infringement. > Wealth and freedom aren't interchangeable. > Try pointing out the finer points of libertarian philosophy to a starving lynch mob and see how far you get. Philosophy is all very nice but if you and your entire family are living in the dirt and on the verge of death you will have other things on your mind, so don't think just because you don't operate a vehicle for a living you won't be in that lynch mob yourself. I certainly would be. All jobs will eventually go the way of the VHS repair man, Blockbuster clerk and truck driver. I predict one of the last jobs to be automated will be an attendant in a old age home, but that job will vanish too with time. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Wed Oct 24 19:03:29 2018 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 20:03:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BD0C201.7000101@zaiboc.net> bill w wrote: "How could a computer of any complexity experience fear?" How could a construct of organic molecules of any complexity feel fear? How could a being made of beer cans and string? or plasma and magnetic fields? It's the same problem, no matter what you're made of. Just because the machines we think with are made of fat and water doesn't make them any more, or less, special than ones made of silicon and plastic. Just different. -- Ben Zaiboc From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 19:38:22 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:38:22 -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: Adrian Tymes wrote: " But for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per participant, one could get some pretty skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot got this large?" Adrian, how do you really know whether or not this has already happened? Lol! You don't.... On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:35 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > So what I want to know is, how hackproof are these lotteries? If you > could rig the win and no one picks up that it's rigged, you've got the > pot, free and clear. These really big pots seem like they'd be worth > some criminal mastermind's time to rig - just once, so they don't get > caught from repetition (a gamble in itself). > > I am well aware that such a "hack" would involve physical interface to > the machines, making it more like a heist. But for tens or hundreds > of millions of dollars per participant, one could get some pretty > skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot > got this large? > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 5:45 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 $2 ticket. However, your chances are pretty > slim. With a 1 in 300 million chance of picking the matching numbers, you > are three times more likely to be killed by a vending machine. An easier > way to really wrap your head around your chances: It?s like flipping a coin > and getting heads 30 times in a row." > > > > > > > https://theconversation.com/the-mega-millions-jackpot-is-now-more-than-1-billion-where-does-all-that-lottery-profit-really-go-105279 > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 19:47:13 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:47:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? In-Reply-To: <00b601d46ae9$b9ffa490$2dfeedb0$@rainier66.com> References: <00b601d46ae9$b9ffa490$2dfeedb0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike wrote: "So what if? we combine a university with a nudist colony!" Could students focus on their work at such a school? Or would they fairly quickly become jaded by the fleshly spectacle? I have a goodlooking young friend who went to Europe and was teased horribly (or was it teased wonderfully?) by European female friends who loved his discomfort in coed showers, and playfully tormented him... Oh, I envy this guy! ; ) On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:31 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2018 7:49 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus > MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? > > > > >?One of my fanciful ?If I built a mansion, I'd keep a lot more than a > million, Spike. Maybe I'd rent it out to nudist girls and visit often to > collect rent. bill w > > > > > > Now that?s the capitalist spirit BillW! > > > > I came up with an idea while I was writing up that free history lesson on > Adam and Eve, how they negotiated there to start with in -4004, and how > that came to be considered the first college. Most of us here have been to > college, so we know the drill. Well, OK, to be precise: we engineering > students don?t know the drill. But we have heard of the drill, from the > normal students in other majors. We were studying actual? like? > engineering, and reading? em? National Geographic. Not necessarily the > National Geo part, if you get my drift. > > > > So. We know how certain businesses go together well. For instance, they > combine vacation destinations with health spas: they get a coupla chiseled > and enthusiastic exercise coaches (both genders) to coax the flabmeisters > to move, that sorta thing, works great when combined with some attractive > tourist destination, sort of a great excuse to go there, pretend they are > doing this for health reasons rather than ogling the coaches. Eh, harmless > fun, ja? > > > > So what if? we combine a university with a nudist colony! > > > > Oh we could make a buttload. > > > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 20:10:52 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:10:52 -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: On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM John Grigg wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote: > " But for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per participant, one could get some pretty > skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot got this large?" > > Adrian, how do you really know whether or not this has already happened? Lol! You don't.... Actually, I do for the specific instance I was asking about. I was asking about the then-most-recent Mega Millions pot (Saturday October 19), which nobody won the grand prize on. There is ample evidence that nobody won said grand prize for said drawing. Since nobody won it, that means nobody won it by hacking (or by any other specific means). From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 20:12:16 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:12:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <5BD0C201.7000101@zaiboc.net> References: <5BD0C201.7000101@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Just because the machines we think with are made of fat and water doesn't make them any more, or less, special than ones made of silicon and plastic. Just different. Ben I agreed with John Clark on this issue some time ago. What I think we can never tell is whether some machine can feel the same way we do. We have difficulty enough telling that between two people. Give a machine the exact same input you give an identical machine and you will get identical results. Not with people. Feed exactly the same input into the ears of two people and they will experience different things. If I gave my audiologist my hearing aid I would expect that he would hear the noise that I hear. Wrong. Learned that from my audiologist. bill w On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:07 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > bill w wrote: > "How could a computer of any complexity experience fear?" > > > How could a construct of organic molecules of any complexity feel fear? > How could a being made of beer cans and string? or plasma and magnetic > fields? It's the same problem, no matter what you're made of. > > Just because the machines we think with are made of fat and water > doesn't make them any more, or less, special than ones made of silicon > and plastic. Just different. > > -- > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 20:18:34 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:18:34 -0500 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: <00b601d46ae9$b9ffa490$2dfeedb0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: was teased horribly (or was it teased wonderfully?) by European female friends who loved his discomfort in coed showers, and playfully tormented him... Oh, I envy this guy! ; ) Grigg Oh, I don't at all. He probably was so embarrassed that his organ shriveled up to nothing, making the embarrassment even worse. He was seeing sexual things but not in a sexual situation. In fact, making it a sexual situation would have been completely wrong. bill w On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM John Grigg wrote: > Spike wrote: > "So what if? we combine a university with a nudist colony!" > > Could students focus on their work at such a school? Or would they fairly > quickly become jaded by the fleshly spectacle? I have a goodlooking young > friend who went to Europe and was teased horribly (or was it teased > wonderfully?) by European female friends who loved his discomfort in coed > showers, and playfully tormented him... Oh, I envy this guy! ; ) > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:31 AM wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *William Flynn Wallace >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2018 7:49 AM >> *To:* ExI chat list >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar >> plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? >> >> >> >> >?One of my fanciful ?If I built a mansion, I'd keep a lot more than a >> million, Spike. Maybe I'd rent it out to nudist girls and visit often to >> collect rent. bill w >> >> >> >> >> >> Now that?s the capitalist spirit BillW! >> >> >> >> I came up with an idea while I was writing up that free history lesson on >> Adam and Eve, how they negotiated there to start with in -4004, and how >> that came to be considered the first college. Most of us here have been to >> college, so we know the drill. Well, OK, to be precise: we engineering >> students don?t know the drill. But we have heard of the drill, from the >> normal students in other majors. We were studying actual? like? >> engineering, and reading? em? National Geographic. Not necessarily the >> National Geo part, if you get my drift. >> >> >> >> So. We know how certain businesses go together well. For instance, they >> combine vacation destinations with health spas: they get a coupla chiseled >> and enthusiastic exercise coaches (both genders) to coax the flabmeisters >> to move, that sorta thing, works great when combined with some attractive >> tourist destination, sort of a great excuse to go there, pretend they are >> doing this for health reasons rather than ogling the coaches. Eh, harmless >> fun, ja? >> >> >> >> So what if? we combine a university with a nudist colony! >> >> >> >> Oh we could make a buttload. >> >> >> >> 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 possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 20:39:24 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:39:24 -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: <007801d46ae1$de5eaf00$9b1c0d00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: William Flynn Wallace wrote: "Right - a few years ago when I was single I bought all the stuff I ever wanted - camera, stereo, PC, cooking gear, yard machines, plasma TV, and of course it was good that I never wanted a mansion, a yacht, etc." Hold on! Being single sounded great for you! And then a woman got involved! Lol! ; ) Actually, I should not give you a hard time, because I met the love of my life, despite being middle-aged and thinking myself past that lovey dovey stuff. And now I look forward to starting a new life in the Philippines, and living with her, and her four girls, ages, 6, 9, 12 and 14, who are wonderful, and need a dad. I have known them for about two years. Parenthood will be a whole new experience for me... She wants the girls raised in the Filipino culture, and is very close to her friends and family. And so I will live there for roughly a decade, as the girls grow up. I'm not an IT professional like so many of you, so my plan is to teach English online, which will make for a humble living. But I will still be paid in dollars, which will allow us to get by. I spent two amazing weeks in the Philippines back in March of this year, and I will see her again, this coming March! She is college educated/associate's degree, and works as an accounts receivable clerk. My love comes from a humble background, but then so do I. I need to raise twenty thousand dollars (any ideas on how to raise funds quickly, please share), so that I can get an indefinite stay Visa (proof of savings, and not a fee). Or, I need to get a work Visa, but if I were to lose the job for some reason, I could get deported! And so that is what I have been up to, lately! I have my work cut out for me... John : ) On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:08 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > BillW talks about giving it away, which is aimed at self-actualization, > which tells me he is already good in the comfort and safety part of the > ladder. > > spike > > > Right - a few years ago when I was single I bought all the stuff I ever > wanted - camera, stereo, PC, cooking gear, yard machines, plasma TV, and of > course it was good that I never wanted a mansion, a yacht, etc. Now my main > wants are books and I have enough money for those. > > > Maybe there are those who are stuff-crazy and never get enough and are > competing with friends ('the guy with the most stuff when he dies, wins'), > but I think with age comes the realization that what is lacking is not more > stuff but more and different experiences, which is not good for me because > I can't travel (back, wife partially disabled). Thanks to the web I can go > places I can't visit, and when virtual reality gear comes of age I hope > that I will be here to enjoy it. Thanks to the web I can 'talk' to people > all over the world. I had an aunt who would love email. You could not > talk to her on the phone for long because she was deathly afraid of the > telephone bill, even if I was paying. > > > bill w > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:26 AM wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *Dave Sill >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar >> plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:25 AM William Flynn Wallace < >> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>?I don't know how I would spend even one million dollars. Two people >> in a giant mansion with servants everywhere? Limousines? Nah. So I would >> hire people to investigate charities and give most of it away? BillW >> >> >> >> >?I'd ensure that my family was taken care of first--not to the level of >> opulence, but to the point of not having to worry about >> food/clothing/shelter/medical/etc. After that I'd use it advocating for >> changes I'd like to see? Dave Sill >> >> >> >> >> >> This exchange reminded me of a concept they explained to us in >> psychology. BillW is likely already an expert in this: Maslow?s hierarchy >> of needs. >> >> >> >> In retrospect I think BillW meant billion dollars rather than a million. >> A million dollars isn?t a lot of money. I have worked on projects with a >> million dollar a year budget: you need to watch your pennies on that small >> an effort, know exactly what you need to do, get er dun, get off the charge >> number as soon as you can, don?t camp out on that number (as we space guys >> used to say.) >> >> >> >> With a windfall billion, Dave is describing making sure all the comfort >> and safety stuff is taken care of, for himself and his family but doesn?t >> mention the status or self-actualization. I would conclude he is already >> good up there at the top. BillW talks about giving it away, which is aimed >> at self-actualization, which tells me he is already good in the comfort and >> safety part of the ladder. >> >> >> >> Every society has people everywhere on the ladder, from those struggling >> with self-actualization down to those struggling with getting sufficient >> food and clothing, never mind shelter. These latter are seen camping along >> the freeways everywhere right around here. >> >> >> >> As society gets more prosperous, the bulk of the wealth is created by >> those up near the top of that ladder (ah jeez, I think I just lit John >> Clark?s fuse with that comment (Johnny, we know already, me lad, we >> know.)) So the society which still has people at the bottom has all these >> people pumping more and more money into climbing near the top of that >> ladder. Those lower rungs are a lot cheaper, but there is a lot less money >> down there. >> >> >> >> 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 Wed Oct 24 20:48:38 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:48:38 -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: <00b601d46ae9$b9ffa490$2dfeedb0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004e01d46bda$f177f480$d467dd80$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Grigg Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:47 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] What would you do if you won the billion dollar plus MegaMillions Lottery, and are lotteries a bad thing? Spike wrote: "So what if? we combine a university with a nudist colony!" >?Could students focus on their work at such a school? Depends on how one defines the term ?work.? >?Or would they fairly quickly become jaded by the fleshly spectacle? Hmmm. Perhaps it requires an actual test. >? European female friends who loved his discomfort in coed showers, and playfully tormented him... Oh, I envy this guy! ; ) Oh dear, my educational years, wasted. Tragic. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 20:51:20 2018 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 13:51:20 -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: Adrian Tymes wrote: "I was asking about the then-most-recent Mega Millions pot (Saturday October 19), which nobody won the grand prize on." I stand corrected! I thought you meant lotteries in general... There have been other huge jackpots, though none this large. I was just wondering if in the past someone might have done what you suggested for this one. I'd enjoy seeing an Oceans 11 style film about a group of skilled crooks who tamper with a lottery drawing. I bet it would do well at the box office! Lol On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 1:15 PM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:42 PM John Grigg > wrote: > > Adrian Tymes wrote: > > " But for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars per participant, one > could get some pretty > > skilled talent. Why hasn't any such group cashed in before the pot got > this large?" > > > > Adrian, how do you really know whether or not this has already > happened? Lol! You don't.... > > Actually, I do for the specific instance I was asking about. > > I was asking about the then-most-recent Mega Millions pot (Saturday > October 19), which nobody won the grand prize on. There is ample > evidence that nobody won said grand prize for said drawing. Since > nobody won it, that means nobody won it by hacking (or by any other > specific means). > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 24 21:55:28 2018 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 17:55:28 -0400 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: If I win the lottery, I'm starting my own lottery. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Oct 24 21:41:05 2018 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 22:41:05 +0100 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: On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 22:06, John Grigg wrote: > > I stand corrected! I thought you meant lotteries in general... There have been other huge jackpots, though none this large. I was just wondering if in the past someone might have done what you suggested for this one. I'd enjoy seeing an Oceans 11 style film about a group of skilled crooks who tamper with a lottery drawing. I bet it would do well at the box office! Lol > It has been done several times. But we only know about it because they eventually got caught. Story here - It is a human failing to repeat successful scams until they fail. We never hear about the one-hit wonders. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 02:15:09 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:15:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking Message-ID: Giulio Prisco wrote: > I am not against habitats in free space ;-) Let's do both and let1000 flowers bloom. But the psychological impact of lunar and planetary outpost is higher (to me at least). If you want people in space, you might want to consider the practical details about how hard it is. People need gravity. Moon gravity might be enough or Mars, but the question is how much more are you willing to pay to live iiin their gravity? That's in comparison to a rotating environment that will give you whatever g you want. I would have to make many assumptions to calculate the actual difference in cost, but would you agree that trying to live deep in a gravity field is going to cost much more than a rotating space colony? > Ultimately, space is not for biological humans, but for our post-biological mind children. But we need to develop human presence in space now, for the mental health of our species. Wee need to keep the space dream alive, otherwise we'll stagnate and never become posthumans. Therefore, let's not wait for posthuman mind children, but let's go to space now. The Moon, Mars, L5, let's do all of that. I used to think that people would get off the planet in substantial numbers before the singularity. But the path for humans into space is long drawn out. I have come around to thinking that humans will follow robots into space and have little influence over early off planet development. Not happy to say that; Keith From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 02:23:40 2018 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 19:23:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Message-ID: spike at rainier66.com> wrote > If we created an L5 station, it might support about, say 70 proles with a mass of perhaps (what would you guess Keith?) ten million kg? You are not thinking in the right order of magnitude. The historical/prehistorical lower limit for a group to exist long term is between 700 and 5000. Keith From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 25 04:42:57 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 21:42:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003901d46c1d$343d48f0$9cb7dad0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Keith Henson Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 7:24 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen spike at rainier66.com> wrote > If we created an L5 station, it might support about, say 70 proles > with a mass of perhaps (what would you guess Keith?) ten million kg? You are not thinking in the right order of magnitude. The historical/prehistorical lower limit for a group to exist long term is between 700 and 5000. Keith _______________________________________________ That lower limit had a different set of assumptions of course. We would have at our disposal much more intensive genetic screening and embryo selection. Under those circumstances, I can imagine very little in the reproductive department would be left to chance. spike From atymes at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 05:09:59 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 22:09:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen In-Reply-To: <003901d46c1d$343d48f0$9cb7dad0$@rainier66.com> References: <003901d46c1d$343d48f0$9cb7dad0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 9:46 PM wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Keith Henson > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 7:24 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen > > spike at rainier66.com> wrote > > > If we created an L5 station, it might support about, say 70 proles > > with a > mass of perhaps (what would you guess Keith?) ten million kg? > > You are not thinking in the right order of magnitude. The > historical/prehistorical lower limit for a group to exist long term is > between 700 and 5000. > > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > > > That lower limit had a different set of assumptions of course. We would > have at our disposal much more intensive genetic screening and embryo > selection. Under those circumstances, I can imagine very little in the > reproductive department would be left to chance. Irrelevant. 70 people groups tend to break up before they breed even one generation. The reason has little to nothing to do with reproduction or genetics. From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 25 06:03:32 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:03:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen In-Reply-To: References: <003901d46c1d$343d48f0$9cb7dad0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005601d46c28$75f61460$61e23d20$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes > _______________________________________________ > > >>... That lower limit had a different set of assumptions of course. We > would have at our disposal much more intensive genetic screening and > embryo selection. Under those circumstances, I can imagine very > little in the reproductive department would be left to chance. >...Irrelevant. 70 people groups tend to break up before they breed even one generation. The reason has little to nothing to do with reproduction or genetics. _______________________________________________ Sure. But of course in a space station, there is no up to break to. There they stay, together they remain, regardless of desire to break up. If you mean they will soon kill each other, ja such a thing is certainly conceivable. spike From atymes at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 06:52:55 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:52:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen In-Reply-To: <005601d46c28$75f61460$61e23d20$@rainier66.com> References: <003901d46c1d$343d48f0$9cb7dad0$@rainier66.com> <005601d46c28$75f61460$61e23d20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:07 PM wrote: > Sure. But of course in a space station, there is no up to break to. Yes there is, and it is ironically down: back to Earth. > There > they stay, together they remain, regardless of desire to break up. Nope. They wander back to where they came from - Earth - if it's possible to do so and there's nothing holding them there. If it's not possible to do so, they make a way. Controlled reentry of the whole space station, perhaps. (You didn't make it to do that? Well, they're there and you aren't. Or you are, but you're outvoted 30:2, with the remainder going with the majority of those who care.) The only way to hold them there is to build an effective social unit. That requires a lot more than 70 people. Personally, I'd say don't try it with less than 10,000, preferably at least 100,000. It's the exact same problem the seasteaders ran into hard - and why the seasteaders aren't still there now, a mere several years after they began. From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 13:11:24 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:11:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen Hawking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:42 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > >> My question about living in space: what do you do about the radiation >> for the long term? > > > > Simple, you genetically engineer your space humans to be black. Not African > black and not just the skin, but pitch-black and including the internal > organs. > That would give you some protection against ultraviolet light and maybe even a little against soft X rays but no protection at all against the most dangerous and hard to shield against type of radiation which isn't electromagnetic at all, its high speed particles in the form of Cosmic Rays. A single proton can be moving so fast it has as much energy as a baseball thrown by a major league pitcher, and when a high speed proton hits something it produces billions of mesons (a particle almost the same as a electron except it has 208 times the mass), and mesons can penetrate hundreds and even thousands of feet of solid rock. Mesons are the reason they went to the trouble and expense of building the LHC in a tunnel 570 feet underground, to protect people from the mesons that were produced there whenever the protons accelerated there hit something. A few years ago there was talk about building a machine that would accelerate mesons instead of protons or electrons, it would have a lot of advantages but was decided to be just too dangerous, they wouldn't be able to bury the machine deep enough to be safe. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 14:05:28 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:05:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Maximum Jailbreak, and the legacy of Stephen In-Reply-To: References: <003901d46c1d$343d48f0$9cb7dad0$@rainier66.com> <005601d46c28$75f61460$61e23d20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: adrian wrote: The only way to hold them there is to build an effective social unit. That requires a lot more than 70 people. Personally, I'd say don't try it with less than 10,000, preferably at least 100,000 >From what I have read, the authors have thought that the bands/tribes we formed, ran to about 150 people. They argued that a person could learn all the names of that many. Archaeological findings, I assume. But I assume that we would want many more than that in a space colony, and so different pods could be constructed. But to me, that would create a danger of the 'us/them' problem and contention between the groups. bill w On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 1:57 AM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:07 PM wrote: > > Sure. But of course in a space station, there is no up to break to. > > Yes there is, and it is ironically down: back to Earth. > > > There > > they stay, together they remain, regardless of desire to break up. > > Nope. They wander back to where they came from - Earth - if it's > possible to do so and there's nothing holding them there. > > If it's not possible to do so, they make a way. Controlled reentry of > the whole space station, perhaps. (You didn't make it to do that? > Well, they're there and you aren't. Or you are, but you're outvoted > 30:2, with the remainder going with the majority of those who care.) > > The only way to hold them there is to build an effective social unit. > That requires a lot more than 70 people. Personally, I'd say don't > try it with less than 10,000, preferably at least 100,000. > > It's the exact same problem the seasteaders ran into hard - and why > the seasteaders aren't still there now, a mere several years after > they began. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 25 14:34:21 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:34:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day Message-ID: college football player Amon Ra Saint Brown bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Oct 25 15:04:41 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 08:04:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008d01d46c74$0f0b4530$2d21cf90$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day college football player Amon Ra Saint Brown bill w Ja. There is a football team named the Cleveland Browns and there is another one called the New Orleans Saints. So was this guy associated with either team? Or both? There are those curly mollusks known as ammonites and there was a tribe in the old days known as the Ammonites, offspring of Ben-Ammi. Thor Heyerdahl went across the sea in a reed boat, an adventure he called the Ra Expedition, there is Ra the Egyptian god of the sun which is called upon collectively by the fans of the Browns and Saints every time their team scores a goal, and of course the element 88 radium, which led to the discovery of radiation, which ushered in the modern age. So perhaps this college football player was the son of parents whose teams were from Cleveland and New Orleans, whose favorite things reed boats, ionizing radiation, Egyptian deities, and curly snail-thingies. I see nothing odd about any of that. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 15:30:47 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 10:30:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day In-Reply-To: <008d01d46c74$0f0b4530$2d21cf90$@rainier66.com> References: <008d01d46c74$0f0b4530$2d21cf90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I see nothing odd about any of that. spike Oh Spike, you are so predictable bill w On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:09 AM wrote: > > > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] odd name of the day > > > > college football player > > > > Amon Ra Saint Brown > > > > bill w > > > > > > > > Ja. > > > > There is a football team named the Cleveland Browns and there is another > one called the New Orleans Saints. So was this guy associated with either > team? Or both? There are those curly mollusks known as ammonites and > there was a tribe in the old days known as the Ammonites, offspring of > Ben-Ammi. Thor Heyerdahl went across the sea in a reed boat, an adventure > he called the Ra Expedition, there is Ra the Egyptian god of the sun which > is called upon collectively by the fans of the Browns and Saints every time > their team scores a goal, and of course the element 88 radium, which led to > the discovery of radiation, which ushered in the modern age. > > > > So perhaps this college football player was the son of parents whose teams > were from Cleveland and New Orleans, whose favorite things reed boats, > ionizing radiation, Egyptian deities, and curly snail-thingies. > > > > I see nothing odd about any of that. > > > > 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 Thu Oct 25 16:14:27 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:14:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day In-Reply-To: References: <008d01d46c74$0f0b4530$2d21cf90$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002901d46c7d$ce5f4950$6b1ddbf0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 8:31 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] odd name of the day >>?I see nothing odd about any of that. spike >?Oh Spike, you are so predictable bill w So I am told. Regularly. Not so politely as this sometimes. But Mr. Amon Ra reminded me of some of my favorite things. Julie Andrews had that whole raindrops on kittens and warm woolen mittens thing going, and she was certainly drop dead gorgeous while playing the aspiring nun (oh what a tragic waste of an excellent bod had not Captain von Trapp Plummer intervened) but wet kittens and warm mittens don?t do it for me at all (oh but Julie does (still! (still crazy gorgeous at age 83! Now THAT?s progress!)))) I am reminded of the Ra Expedition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl https://www.kon-tiki.no/expeditions/ra-expeditions/ Thor Heyerdahl sailed in a reed boat from Morocco to Barbados. I read all about this whole thing in the January 1971 National Geographic, and for you doubters, there is proof, PROOF! that I really did read National Geographic for the ARTICLES! Well, partially. Particularly after about 1964 when they stopped with the racy stuff. After that? articles. Read em. Liked em. Still do. And those curly snail thingies are tasty bits of sushi too. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 16:51:38 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:51:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day In-Reply-To: <002901d46c7d$ce5f4950$6b1ddbf0$@rainier66.com> References: <008d01d46c74$0f0b4530$2d21cf90$@rainier66.com> <002901d46c7d$ce5f4950$6b1ddbf0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: There are some perfect things in this world, and Julie Andrews in Sound of Music is one. Robert Preston in Music Man is another. Will never be topped. I read Kon-Tiki way back sometime and the following book about another adventure, which I now recall as Ra. I remember most the whale shark that followed the boat. Did you see S.O.B.? Waste of Julie's talents, though of course it was a satire on Hollywood. She was good in 10 as well. But for me she is not sexy in the slightest. Give me Catherine Zeta-Jones any day. Brunettes has always done it for me, so to speak. (though not Jane Russell). Blondes, never. Not even Marilyn. Here are some very tasteful (R- rated) and beautifully lighted women: https://gallery-of-nudes.com/photographer/ken-adams/ How come I never see anyone like those at Walmart? bill w On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:23 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Thursday, October 25, 2018 8:31 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] odd name of the day > > > > >>?I see nothing odd about any of that. > > spike > > > > >?Oh Spike, you are so predictable > > bill w > > > > So I am told. Regularly. Not so politely as this sometimes. > > But Mr. Amon Ra reminded me of some of my favorite things. Julie Andrews > had that whole raindrops on kittens and warm woolen mittens thing going, > and she was certainly drop dead gorgeous while playing the aspiring nun (oh > what a tragic waste of an excellent bod had not Captain von Trapp Plummer > intervened) but wet kittens and warm mittens don?t do it for me at all (oh > but Julie does (still! (still crazy gorgeous at age 83! Now THAT?s > progress!)))) > > I am reminded of the Ra Expedition. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl > > https://www.kon-tiki.no/expeditions/ra-expeditions/ > > Thor Heyerdahl sailed in a reed boat from Morocco to Barbados. I read all > about this whole thing in the January 1971 National Geographic, and for you > doubters, there is proof, PROOF! that I really did read National > Geographic for the ARTICLES! Well, partially. Particularly after about > 1964 when they stopped with the racy stuff. After that? articles. Read > em. Liked em. Still do. > > And those curly snail thingies are tasty bits of sushi too. > > 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 Thu Oct 25 19:38:11 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 12:38:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day In-Reply-To: References: <008d01d46c74$0f0b4530$2d21cf90$@rainier66.com> <002901d46c7d$ce5f4950$6b1ddbf0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009d01d46c9a$44478c10$ccd6a430$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] odd name of the day >?There are some perfect things in this world, and Julie Andrews in Sound of Music is one? bill w Eh, I can think of a major flaw which made the whole story completely unbelievable. When Maria gets to the house and she goes into the ballroom, waiting to meet the Captain and she is doing her little dance thing there, von Trapp catches her and makes some kind of rude comment about certain rooms being off limits etc. No way. No possible way, never happen. Any real man would take one look at her and if he managed to not faint, it would be like Ralph Kramden: hammina hammina hammina? As soon as he regained his composure, he would say: OK never mind the interview, you are sooooo hired. Anyplace you want to go in this house, just move riiiight on in there, it?s yours, no worries babe. All this would take place before she sang the first note, on sheer beauty alone. And Charmian Karr was another one in the same class as Julie, oooooh mercy what a beauty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj5-9RlA1M4 I do hope the singularity people manage to code something of this order magnitude of attractiveness in our sim world. Wouldn?t that be a delight? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsa at unsa.edu.ar Thu Oct 25 21:25:57 2018 From: dsa at unsa.edu.ar (Diego Saravia) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 18:25:57 -0300 Subject: [ExI] live longer start up Message-ID: https://angel.co/newsletters/silicon-valley-wants-you-to-live-longer-or-forever-102518 -- Diego Saravia dsa at ututo.org Diego.Saravia at gmail.com NO SIEMPRE FUNCIONA->dsa at unsa.edu.ar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Oct 25 22:29:13 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 17:29:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] odd name of the day In-Reply-To: <009d01d46c9a$44478c10$ccd6a430$@rainier66.com> References: <008d01d46c74$0f0b4530$2d21cf90$@rainier66.com> <002901d46c7d$ce5f4950$6b1ddbf0$@rainier66.com> <009d01d46c9a$44478c10$ccd6a430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Eh, I can think of a major flaw which made the whole story completely unbelievable. Disagree - he was acting the perfect Austrian chauvinist male who must establish dominance over everybody. Anyway, to me the best thing about Julie was her personality, both in Sound and in Poppins. I don't think people grasp that making a smile on cue, and maybe 15 takes, look perfectly natural, is great acting Pretty girls are not exactly a dime a dozen in Alabama, but there were plenty of them when I taught there - a school 2/3 girls - and Southern. I don't know, outside of California, where there are any prettier girls than the Deep South. So while I got to look at thousands of them, the ones who got even prettier as the semester went on, were the ones who had lively and intelligent faces. In fact, lively and intelligent could make up for some lack of beauty. Great bodies is another topic altogether. Bag over the head issues, etc. An odd choice of mine is the girl who played the daughter in We're No Angels, with Humphrey Bogart, one of my favorites. If somehow you have missed this movie, fix that. Ustinov is great, as usual. She is not even pretty, but in the movie she was just fetching: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0847993/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t8 bill w p.s. the only woman I have ever know who can go from attractive to nearly ugly is Barbara Streisand. On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:42 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] odd name of the day > > > > > > > > >?There are some perfect things in this world, and Julie Andrews in Sound > of Music is one? bill w > > > > > > Eh, I can think of a major flaw which made the whole story completely > unbelievable. When Maria gets to the house and she goes into the ballroom, > waiting to meet the Captain and she is doing her little dance thing there, > von Trapp catches her and makes some kind of rude comment about certain > rooms being off limits etc. No way. No possible way, never happen. Any > real man would take one look at her and if he managed to not faint, it > would be like Ralph Kramden: hammina hammina hammina? > > > > As soon as he regained his composure, he would say: OK never mind the > interview, you are sooooo hired. Anyplace you want to go in this house, > just move riiiight on in there, it?s yours, no worries babe. > > > > All this would take place before she sang the first note, on sheer beauty > alone. And Charmian Karr was another one in the same class as Julie, > oooooh mercy what a beauty. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj5-9RlA1M4 > > > > I do hope the singularity people manage to code something of this order > magnitude of attractiveness in our sim world. Wouldn?t that be a delight? > > > > 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 Oct 26 00:45:57 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 19:45:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion Message-ID: Is the ultimate irony here that many men would love to have attractive women approach them and do and say the things that are called sexual harassment when men do them to women? Men would call these flattering and a lot more. Welcome even if there's no follow-through. I wonder if some women wouldn't welcome them too. I am not saying that anyone is wrong. One person's welcome is another person's harassment. Bujold has a planet in her universe where everyone wears something informing of availability, short/long term preferences, sexual preferences. You know, this sounds like a great idea. You will know when you are not wanted. People could change the signals whenever they liked, from day to day, even - or on the cliche' business trip. Getting together should not have to be complicated. Your opinion? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 01:10:22 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:10:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Is the ultimate irony here that many men would love to have attractive women approach them and do and say the things that are called sexual harassment when men do them to women? Many women would love to have attractive men approach them as well. > Bujold has a planet in her universe where everyone wears something informing of availability, short/long term preferences, sexual preferences. You know, this sounds like a great idea. You will know when you are not wanted. People could change the signals whenever they liked, from day to day, even - or on the cliche' business trip. > Reminds me of hanky code -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Oct 26 03:40:26 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 20:40:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) Message-ID: John Clark wrote: >>> My question about living in space:? what do you do about the >>> radiation for the long term? > >> Simple, you genetically engineer your space humans to be black. Not >> African black and not just the skin, but pitch-black and including the >> internal organs. > > That would give you some protection against ultraviolet light and maybe > even a little against soft X rays but no protection at all against the > most dangerous and hard to shield against type of radiation which isn't > electromagnetic at all, its high speed particles in the form of Cosmic > Rays. Yes. You are right and I am guilty of not properly explaining an idea that I have been kicking around for some time. That being how to best engineer and adapt humans to living in space for the long term. I imagined an offshoot of Homo sapiens called Homo radiodurans that would essentially be humans that had been genetically engineered to better survive the rigors of space travel and long term habitation. I named them for their resistance to radiation but I have imagined other adaptations as well. For example, they would be small by terrestrial standards perhaps 4 feet tall or so. Size is not an asset for people who live in cans. I also envision them being able to enter cryptobiotic suspension for long journeys and such. Homo radiodurans would owe its radiation resistance to being engineeered with specific genes from several known examples of extremophiles that can withstand several orders of magnitude more radiation than would be lethal for a human. You already know about the black melanin producing radiotrophic fungi that photosynthesize using x-rays and gamma rays and we might be be able to get away with simply over-expressing our own melanin genes. But you are right that such would be no defense for cosmic rays of the particulate variety. Therefore I have turned to other extremophiles such as tardigrades or "water bears" and the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans, which inspired the name of these engineered humans, for solutions. Tardigrades are notable for having survived being directly exposed to the hard vacuum and radiation of space for several hours, so they would be the gold standard for what we could accomplish given the will to engineer our germline. Particulate radiation like high energy protons damage DNA by causing double stranded breaks and knocking electrons about generating reactive free radicals. Organisms that are highly resistant to radiation generally utilize a strategy of gene redundancy and extremely efficient DNA repair and free radical quenching. In other words, they have multiple copies of their chromosomes and several copies of every gene that encodes for DNA repair enzymes and antioxidant enzymes. Humans have DNA repair enzymes as well, but they are not as efficient or numerous as those of tardigrades. For example, humans have about 10 varieties of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and enzyme that deactivates oxygen free radicals while tardigrades have 16. Tardigrades also have some unique DNA repair enzymes as well. One of which was actually already introduced into human cell lines a couple of years ago as reported in nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12808#f6 https://www.nature.com/news/tardigrade-protein-helps-human-dna-withstand-radiation-1.20648#/b1 The upshot of the experiment is that the transfected gene protected the human cells from radiation that killed off the control cells. This is proof of principle that Homo radiodurans is at least theoretically possible. Other strategies would involve conditioning astronauts with gradually increasing dosages of radiation prior to sending them into space. There is some evidence that people can adapt to radiation in this fashion. The phenomenon is called radiation hormesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis However all these biological adaptations and strategies need to be used in conjunction with hardware like adequate shielding of spacecraft and habitations. At the end of the day, no matter what genes you have, a proton with the kinetic energy of major league fastball pitch is going to do some damage to your cells. Space is the most hostile environment we have ever faced. For that reason alone we must conquer it if for no other reason than to test ourselves against eternity. Stuart LaForge From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 05:03:03 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:03:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 5:49 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Is the ultimate irony here that many men would love to have attractive women approach them and do and say the things that are called sexual harassment when men do them to women? Not sure if it's "ultimate", but it is irony. I've stated in public that I am among the percentage of men who have been sexually harassed. Back in high school, specifically PE class (so I was wearing shorts as part of the school's PE uniform), while I was sitting alone in the bleachers thinking about something, four girls mobbed me and felt up my legs, with comments that...let's just say, their tone of voice made clear their impure thoughts. I was surprised: this had never happened to me before. They ran and scattered before I could gather my wits. It was unquestionably sexual harassment. Those who want to empathize with victims don't ask any further and make a bunch of assumptions, such as how I felt about it. When dealing with those who will only treat "victims" with any credibility, that story - 100% true (if incomplete when I end it there) - has sometimes been a useful ticket out of the "problem" of being a non-poor first world straight while male. In truth, as regards to that instance I was a typical teenage boy. I took it as a compliment, and would not have objected had any of them wished to continue. But those who prefer to see victims won't see that unless I tell them (and possibly even then). Reality filters are a thing. From spike at rainier66.com Fri Oct 26 05:28:23 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:28:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] opinion On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 5:49 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>... Is the ultimate irony ... >...In truth, as regards to that instance I was a typical teenage boy. I took it as a compliment, and would not have objected had any of them wished to continue. But those who prefer to see victims won't see that unless I tell them (and possibly even then). Reality filters are a thing. _______________________________________________ Ja, we have an internal inconsistency in the western world we aren't any closer to resolving. We want to pretend that men and women really are the same thing inside, completely interchangeable except for the reproductive organs. We have transgender wrestlers and bicycle racers starting to dominate women's divisions, and we can pretty much extrapolate where that will end up: nearly all female athletes will be XY genetically. We really have a hard time denying men and women are different emotionally. I know, politically incorrect, but I am old, so I get a license to some extent. Adrian, in the scenario you described, I woulda likely reacted pretty similarly. OK now, how does it change had those four girls been four gay men? You (and I) would really be extremely annoyed. spike From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 05:56:08 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:56:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> References: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:31 PM wrote: > We really have a hard time denying men and women are different emotionally. > I know, politically incorrect, but I am old, so I get a license to some > extent. Eh...a lot of that, though, is that they are often raised differently. And perhaps they shouldn't be. That's not 100% of the difference, but the overlap between biological capability is such that the social influences seem to account for a majority of the difference seen in practice. > Adrian, in the scenario you described, I woulda likely reacted pretty > similarly. OK now, how does it change had those four girls been four gay > men? You (and I) would really be extremely annoyed. Annoyed, yes. Traumatized for life, no. Encouraged to take it as being violated, no. See examples suggesting we should make a big dramatic thing of it, no. Led to believe that someone else needs to handle it and we can't (only to see them unable to do so because there's not really a thing to handle), no. From ben at zaiboc.net Fri Oct 26 06:39:52 2018 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 07:39:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BD2B6B8.1010009@zaiboc.net> BillW wrote: > I agreed with John Clark on this issue some time ago. What I think we > can never tell is whether some machine can feel the same way we do. > We have difficulty enough telling that between two people. Give a > machine the exact same input you give an identical machine and you > will get identical results. Not with people. Yes, and there's a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, the evolved machines that we call people are much more complex than the designed machines that we currently make, and secondly they are the product of natural (i.e. random) processes that actually encourage differences, with the result that no two people are identical. Both of those things will change. So while you say "we can never tell..", I'd rather say "we can't currently tell...". -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 15:10:03 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 10:10:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: You won't find many psychologists who think men and women are the same - certainly not evolutionary ones. And I argue that it makes little difference how they are raised. Unisex toys get played with differently by boys and girls, and so on. You can't take the boy out of the boy. A famous case is where a boy with mutilated genitals had them removed and was raised as a girl. Later he questioned all of this and somehow knew he was not a girl. Genetics is powerful. You can make a future gay boy play with tanks and play football, but it won't matter at all. bill w On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 1:16 AM Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 10:31 PM wrote: > > We really have a hard time denying men and women are different > emotionally. > > I know, politically incorrect, but I am old, so I get a license to some > > extent. > > Eh...a lot of that, though, is that they are often raised differently. > And perhaps they shouldn't be. > > That's not 100% of the difference, but the overlap between biological > capability is such that the social influences seem to account for a > majority of the difference seen in practice. > > > Adrian, in the scenario you described, I woulda likely reacted pretty > > similarly. OK now, how does it change had those four girls been four gay > > men? You (and I) would really be extremely annoyed. > > Annoyed, yes. Traumatized for life, no. Encouraged to take it as > being violated, no. See examples suggesting we should make a big > dramatic thing of it, no. Led to believe that someone else needs to > handle it and we can't (only to see them unable to do so because > there's not really a thing to handle), no. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Oct 26 17:05:10 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:05:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <4C91E2D6-0C17-4995-B61F-AA5E43A81C19@gmail.com> > And I argue that it makes little difference how they are raised. Unisex toys get played with differently by boys and girls, and so on. You can't take the boy out of the boy. > > bill w Of course there are biological differences between the sexes, but also within the sexes as well. And bias and socialization in children begins extremely early. For example the bias of mothers one the inclines their children can handle https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11063631/ Mothers think boys are more capable, and girls less capable, but in fact at this point there is no difference. A series of these small deviations could (possibly) have a large effect after many years. But, honestly, I?m not sure. There are other pop ?experiments? which show similar things as well. https://youtu.be/nWu44AqF0iI Obviously not scientifically rigorous, but you get my point. Then of course, some people don?t fit neatly into the male/female dichotomy, and I think for them, how they are raised may have a large role in their development. For someone like myself, if I had been raised in a more ?girly? way I might be a more feminine/girly person, rather than associating myself more with men. I don?t deny my biological gender, and I don?t consider myself trans, but I often am very happy to fit into a ?male? role when available. In the earlier example, when the girls were touching without permission, I have similar stories of things boys did to me throughout school. I was never particularly bothered by it, and truth be told, enjoyed it usually. I think it depends, really. The socialization between men and women is usually extremely different, so it is difficult to know how much is innate and how much is socialization. There is definitely some social component, but is it 1/5 of what we see, or is it 4/5? I?m not sure. In regards to the boy with the botched circumcision, he ?somehow? always knew he was a boy... well, his parents knew. Humans can pick up on very subtle things, especially over a long period of time. His parents reaction to his behavior was probably colored by this as well. We can?t know for sure. One thing that interests me, but is basically forbidden discourse nowadays in feminist circles, are research into the ?gendering? of brains and their structures. For example that those who are attracted to men have a certain brain region which can show this, or those attracted to women, regardless of biological sex. To me this is interesting, as more ?gendered? structures may be found in the future, which might help us understand ?unusual? circumstances. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 17:03:10 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:03:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't doubt all that is possible with genetic engineering but it wouldn't be easy, I expect by the time it could be done superhuman AI will be around so Homo radiodurans will have serious competition. It will be a match between biology and electronics and I think electronics will win. John K Clark ============ On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:45 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > John Clark wrote: > > >>> My question about living in space: what do you do about the > >>> radiation for the long term? > > > >> Simple, you genetically engineer your space humans to be black. Not > >> African black and not just the skin, but pitch-black and including the > >> internal organs. > > > > That would give you some protection against ultraviolet light and maybe > > even a little against soft X rays but no protection at all against the > > most dangerous and hard to shield against type of radiation which isn't > > electromagnetic at all, its high speed particles in the form of Cosmic > > Rays. > > Yes. You are right and I am guilty of not properly explaining an idea that > I have been kicking around for some time. That being how to best engineer > and adapt humans to living in space for the long term. I imagined an > offshoot of Homo sapiens called Homo radiodurans that would essentially be > humans that had been genetically engineered to better survive the rigors > of space travel and long term habitation. > > I named them for their resistance to radiation but I have imagined other > adaptations as well. For example, they would be small by terrestrial > standards perhaps 4 feet tall or so. Size is not an asset for people who > live in cans. I also envision them being able to enter cryptobiotic > suspension for long journeys and such. > > Homo radiodurans would owe its radiation resistance to being engineeered > with specific genes from several known examples of extremophiles that can > withstand several orders of magnitude more radiation than would be lethal > for a human. > > You already know about the black melanin producing radiotrophic fungi that > photosynthesize using x-rays and gamma rays and we might be be able to get > away with simply over-expressing our own melanin genes. But you are right > that such would be no defense for cosmic rays of the particulate variety. > > Therefore I have turned to other extremophiles such as tardigrades or > "water bears" and the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans, which inspired > the name of these engineered humans, for solutions. Tardigrades are > notable for having survived being directly exposed to the hard vacuum and > radiation of space for several hours, so they would be the gold standard > for what we could accomplish given the will to engineer our germline. > > Particulate radiation like high energy protons damage DNA by causing > double stranded breaks and knocking electrons about generating reactive > free radicals. > > Organisms that are highly resistant to radiation generally utilize a > strategy of gene redundancy and extremely efficient DNA repair and free > radical quenching. In other words, they have multiple copies of their > chromosomes and several copies of every gene that encodes for DNA repair > enzymes and antioxidant enzymes. > > Humans have DNA repair enzymes as well, but they are not as efficient or > numerous as those of tardigrades. For example, humans have about 10 > varieties of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and enzyme that deactivates oxygen > free radicals while tardigrades have 16. > > Tardigrades also have some unique DNA repair enzymes as well. One of which > was actually already introduced into human cell lines a couple of years > ago as reported in nature. > > https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12808#f6 > > > https://www.nature.com/news/tardigrade-protein-helps-human-dna-withstand-radiation-1.20648#/b1 > > The upshot of the experiment is that the transfected gene protected the > human cells from radiation that killed off the control cells. This is > proof of principle that Homo radiodurans is at least theoretically > possible. > > Other strategies would involve conditioning astronauts with gradually > increasing dosages of radiation prior to sending them into space. There is > some evidence that people can adapt to radiation in this fashion. The > phenomenon is called radiation hormesis. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis > > However all these biological adaptations and strategies need to be used in > conjunction with hardware like adequate shielding of spacecraft and > habitations. At the end of the day, no matter what genes you have, a > proton with the kinetic energy of major league fastball pitch is going to > do some damage to your cells. > > Space is the most hostile environment we have ever faced. For that reason > alone we must conquer it if for no other reason than to test ourselves > against eternity. > > 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 Fri Oct 26 17:50:33 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:50:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <5BD2B6B8.1010009@zaiboc.net> References: <5BD2B6B8.1010009@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:44 AM Ben Zaiboc wrote: >* the evolved machines that we call people are much more complex than the > designed machines that we currently make,* > Until very recently I would have strongly agreed but not so much now. Just a few months ago the USA regained the crown of having the fastest computer in the world after China had it for 4 years, the Summit computer at Oak Ridge can do 200 Petaflops per second. But Summit won't hold the crown for long, both the USA, China and Japan are working on a Exascale computer and one of them could be online as early as next year. Exascale (10^18 floating point operations per second) is interesting because it is thought to be roughly the information processing capacity of the human brain. > *no two people are identical. * Even today it would be hard to find 2 computers that were identical, even if they had the same hardware and software they probably didn't start to run the same program at the same time. *> they are the product of natural (i.e. random) processes* A key part of Evolution is natural selection and that is not random. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 18:34:42 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:34:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: <5BD2B6B8.1010009@zaiboc.net> References: <5BD2B6B8.1010009@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Firstly, the evolved machines that we call people are much more complex than the designed machines that we currently make, and secondly they are the product of natural (i.e. random) processes that actually encourage differences, with the result that no two people are identical. Both of those things will change. So while you say "we can never tell..", I'd rather say "we can't currently tell...". ben Even with cloned people you can't stop crossover during mitosis, can you? Never mind. I can't think of any reason to have identical people anyway. You could never create two people who were genetically identical and then create identical environments for them, because you can do neither. bill w On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 1:43 AM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > BillW wrote: > > I agreed with John Clark on this issue some time ago. What I think we can > never tell is whether some machine can feel the same way we do. We have > difficulty enough telling that between two people. Give a machine the > exact same input you give an identical machine and you will get identical > results. Not with people. > > > > Yes, and there's a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, the evolved > machines that we call people are much more complex than the designed > machines that we currently make, and secondly they are the product of > natural (i.e. random) processes that actually encourage differences, with > the result that no two people are identical. Both of those things will > change. So while you say "we can never tell..", I'd rather say "we can't > currently tell...". > > -- > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 18:38:38 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:38:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: <4C91E2D6-0C17-4995-B61F-AA5E43A81C19@gmail.com> References: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> <4C91E2D6-0C17-4995-B61F-AA5E43A81C19@gmail.com> Message-ID: Judith Rich Harris, who wrote the nuclear bomb The Nurture Assumption, also wrote a book about her two female children: No Two Alike. Both extremely important and interesting books. Along the same line, Pinker's The Blank Slate. I think it would take extreme environments to alter the power of genetics. bill w On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:15 PM SR Ballard wrote: > > And I argue that it makes little difference how they are raised. Unisex > toys get played with differently by boys and girls, and so on. You can't > take the boy out of the boy. > > bill w > > > Of course there are biological differences between the sexes, but also > within the sexes as well. And bias and socialization in children begins > extremely early. > > For example the bias of mothers one the inclines their children can handle > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11063631/ > Mothers think boys are more capable, and girls less capable, but in fact > at this point there is no difference. A series of these small deviations > could (possibly) have a large effect after many years. But, honestly, I?m > not sure. > > There are other pop ?experiments? which show similar things as well. > https://youtu.be/nWu44AqF0iI > Obviously not scientifically rigorous, but you get my point. > > Then of course, some people don?t fit neatly into the male/female > dichotomy, and I think for them, how they are raised may have a large role > in their development. For someone like myself, if I had been raised in a > more ?girly? way I might be a more feminine/girly person, rather than > associating myself more with men. I don?t deny my biological gender, and I > don?t consider myself trans, but I often am very happy to fit into a ?male? > role when available. > > In the earlier example, when the girls were touching without permission, I > have similar stories of things boys did to me throughout school. I was > never particularly bothered by it, and truth be told, enjoyed it usually. > > I think it depends, really. The socialization between men and women is > usually extremely different, so it is difficult to know how much is innate > and how much is socialization. There is definitely some social component, > but is it 1/5 of what we see, or is it 4/5? I?m not sure. > > In regards to the boy with the botched circumcision, he ?somehow? always > knew he was a boy... well, his parents knew. Humans can pick up on very > subtle things, especially over a long period of time. His parents reaction > to his behavior was probably colored by this as well. We can?t know for > sure. > > One thing that interests me, but is basically forbidden discourse nowadays > in feminist circles, are research into the ?gendering? of brains and their > structures. For example that those who are attracted to men have a certain > brain region which can show this, or those attracted to women, regardless > of biological sex. To me this is interesting, as more ?gendered? structures > may be found in the future, which might help us understand ?unusual? > circumstances. > > 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 Fri Oct 26 18:43:15 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:43:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't doubt all that is possible with genetic engineering but it wouldn't > be easy, I expect by the time it could be done superhuman AI will be around > so Homo radiodurans will have serious competition. It will be a match > between biology and electronics and I think electronics will win. > > John K Clark > ============ > Will win what ? No question that AIs will be more adapted to living in > space and going to Neptune, etc. Getting data from them will be awesome, > but people want things first-hand. I had an uncle who was fairly widely > traveled, and his idea of a travel photo was one in which he was in it. > The other things you could see in a book. > bill w > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:45 PM Stuart LaForge > wrote: > >> John Clark wrote: >> >> >>> My question about living in space: what do you do about the >> >>> radiation for the long term? >> > >> >> Simple, you genetically engineer your space humans to be black. Not >> >> African black and not just the skin, but pitch-black and including the >> >> internal organs. >> > >> > That would give you some protection against ultraviolet light and maybe >> > even a little against soft X rays but no protection at all against the >> > most dangerous and hard to shield against type of radiation which isn't >> > electromagnetic at all, its high speed particles in the form of Cosmic >> > Rays. >> >> Yes. You are right and I am guilty of not properly explaining an idea that >> I have been kicking around for some time. That being how to best engineer >> and adapt humans to living in space for the long term. I imagined an >> offshoot of Homo sapiens called Homo radiodurans that would essentially be >> humans that had been genetically engineered to better survive the rigors >> of space travel and long term habitation. >> >> I named them for their resistance to radiation but I have imagined other >> adaptations as well. For example, they would be small by terrestrial >> standards perhaps 4 feet tall or so. Size is not an asset for people who >> live in cans. I also envision them being able to enter cryptobiotic >> suspension for long journeys and such. >> >> Homo radiodurans would owe its radiation resistance to being engineeered >> with specific genes from several known examples of extremophiles that can >> withstand several orders of magnitude more radiation than would be lethal >> for a human. >> >> You already know about the black melanin producing radiotrophic fungi that >> photosynthesize using x-rays and gamma rays and we might be be able to get >> away with simply over-expressing our own melanin genes. But you are right >> that such would be no defense for cosmic rays of the particulate variety. >> >> Therefore I have turned to other extremophiles such as tardigrades or >> "water bears" and the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans, which inspired >> the name of these engineered humans, for solutions. Tardigrades are >> notable for having survived being directly exposed to the hard vacuum and >> radiation of space for several hours, so they would be the gold standard >> for what we could accomplish given the will to engineer our germline. >> >> Particulate radiation like high energy protons damage DNA by causing >> double stranded breaks and knocking electrons about generating reactive >> free radicals. >> >> Organisms that are highly resistant to radiation generally utilize a >> strategy of gene redundancy and extremely efficient DNA repair and free >> radical quenching. In other words, they have multiple copies of their >> chromosomes and several copies of every gene that encodes for DNA repair >> enzymes and antioxidant enzymes. >> >> Humans have DNA repair enzymes as well, but they are not as efficient or >> numerous as those of tardigrades. For example, humans have about 10 >> varieties of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and enzyme that deactivates oxygen >> free radicals while tardigrades have 16. >> >> Tardigrades also have some unique DNA repair enzymes as well. One of which >> was actually already introduced into human cell lines a couple of years >> ago as reported in nature. >> >> https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12808#f6 >> >> >> https://www.nature.com/news/tardigrade-protein-helps-human-dna-withstand-radiation-1.20648#/b1 >> >> The upshot of the experiment is that the transfected gene protected the >> human cells from radiation that killed off the control cells. This is >> proof of principle that Homo radiodurans is at least theoretically >> possible. >> >> Other strategies would involve conditioning astronauts with gradually >> increasing dosages of radiation prior to sending them into space. There is >> some evidence that people can adapt to radiation in this fashion. The >> phenomenon is called radiation hormesis. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis >> >> However all these biological adaptations and strategies need to be used in >> conjunction with hardware like adequate shielding of spacecraft and >> habitations. At the end of the day, no matter what genes you have, a >> proton with the kinetic energy of major league fastball pitch is going to >> do some damage to your cells. >> >> Space is the most hostile environment we have ever faced. For that reason >> alone we must conquer it if for no other reason than to test ourselves >> against eternity. >> >> 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 sen.otaku at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 19:18:58 2018 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:18:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> <4C91E2D6-0C17-4995-B61F-AA5E43A81C19@gmail.com> Message-ID: <79609AF0-DAF1-4CD2-8928-9A7B543C1519@gmail.com> > > I think it would take extreme environments to alter the power of genetics. > > bill w I?m not saying genetics have no power, I?m asking how much power they have in relation to environment. Is environment 10%? 25%? I sincerely doubt it would be near or above 50% actually. And further, what counts as ?extreme?? Sexual assault? Child abuse? PTSD? They are honestly pretty common it seems. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 19:38:39 2018 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 12:38:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: <79609AF0-DAF1-4CD2-8928-9A7B543C1519@gmail.com> References: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> <4C91E2D6-0C17-4995-B61F-AA5E43A81C19@gmail.com> <79609AF0-DAF1-4CD2-8928-9A7B543C1519@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D5B0CD2-ADA2-4DEA-A9A9-0BA28B8CD89E@gmail.com> On Oct 26, 2018, at 12:18 PM, SR Ballard wrote: >> I think it would take extreme environments to alter the power of genetics. >> >> bill w > > I?m not saying genetics have no power, I?m asking how much power they have in relation to environment. Is environment 10%? 25%? I sincerely doubt it would be near or above 50% actually. > > And further, what counts as ?extreme?? Sexual assault? Child abuse? PTSD? They are honestly pretty common it seems. And it?s not like children are raised in a gender neutral environment until they?re 12. The socialization process starts at birth. By the way, two professors who write quite reasonably on gender issues are Anne Fausto-Sterling (_Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World_) and Caroline Fine (_Testosterone Rex_). Libertarians all too often end up being bio-essentialists (and conservative ones at that) on this issue. But there are a growing number of libertarians who take what I believe to be a better approach to gender. See: https://c4ss.org/content/38269 and, if you have time, http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/libertarian-feminism/ Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 21:31:26 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:31:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>It will be a match between biology and electronics and I think >> electronics will win. >> > > >Will win what ? > Will win the contest that determines if biologic or electronic based intelligence becomes the boss. > > people want things first-hand. > I don't think it will matter much what people want, it will matter what the electronic AI wants. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 21:42:27 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 16:42:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: <5D5B0CD2-ADA2-4DEA-A9A9-0BA28B8CD89E@gmail.com> References: <000101d46cec$b70ed030$252c7090$@rainier66.com> <4C91E2D6-0C17-4995-B61F-AA5E43A81C19@gmail.com> <79609AF0-DAF1-4CD2-8928-9A7B543C1519@gmail.com> <5D5B0CD2-ADA2-4DEA-A9A9-0BA28B8CD89E@gmail.com> Message-ID: And it?s not like children are raised in a gender neutral environment until they?re 12. The socialization process starts at birth. dan Curiously, it begins before that. You will read or hear of this nowhere else, as it comes directly out of my head. The fetus can hear, at some point. And can hear his mother quite well, and environmental sounds pretty well, as fluid carries sound much better than air does. So what does the fetus hear? Probably about as much as Mama hears. But a sort of imprinting occurs, and the infant will be partial to Mama's voice and those like hers, and those will typically be other women. Men with their lower voices are more unfamiliar and with the baby's 'instincts' they are to be suspected. This would be reinforced greatly if men around the mother shouted at her, or just shouted. Loud noises, along with loss of support, are the only two inherited fears. Loud noise coupled with males' voices and you have a learned fear occurring before birth. If I am right, this could carry on into adulthood and may even be permanent. Results? Men are more feared than women, and of course other factors support this idea, as most violence comes from boys and men. What else, you say? Teens' choice of music may be affected. Nearly all boy rock stars have high voices or use the upper part of the voice in their songs. Even in opera the good guys are the tenors and the bad guys the bassos. Few men's popular music voices are deep. I am willing to leave this topic with this idea: I don't trust and therefore don't believe anyone on the topic of sex and gender who is not in some scientific field relating to the study of those topics. Too much politics here; too much bias. Too many opinions and too little data. Most things here will never be effectively proven because we ethically cannot do the studies necessary to assign values to nature and nurture. For my money it's 50/50 at best and when not that, genetics is stronger and genetics is guiding what learning is occurring. Prepared learning, some call it. bill w On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:42 PM Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Oct 26, 2018, at 12:18 PM, SR Ballard wrote: > > I think it would take extreme environments to alter the power of genetics. > > bill w > > > I?m not saying genetics have no power, I?m asking how much power they have > in relation to environment. Is environment 10%? 25%? I sincerely doubt it > would be near or above 50% actually. > > And further, what counts as ?extreme?? Sexual assault? Child abuse? PTSD? > They are honestly pretty common it seems. > > > And it?s not like children are raised in a gender neutral environment > until they?re 12. The socialization process starts at birth. > > By the way, two professors who write quite reasonably on gender issues are > Anne Fausto-Sterling (_Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World_) and Caroline > Fine (_Testosterone Rex_). > > Libertarians all too often end up being bio-essentialists (and > conservative ones at that) on this issue. But there are a growing number of > libertarians who take what I believe to be a better approach to gender. See: > > https://c4ss.org/content/38269 > > and, if you have time, > > http://charleswjohnson.name/essays/libertarian-feminism/ > > 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 Fri Oct 26 21:45:20 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 16:45:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't think it will matter much what people want, it will matter what the electronic AI wants. John K Clark I think that the first time an AI tries to take over something and push humans around, there will be a world-wide alarm and similarly programmed AIs will be re-programmed or unplugged until the causes can be found. bill w On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:36 PM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:01 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >>It will be a match between biology and electronics and I think >>> electronics will win. >>> >> >> >Will win what ? >> > > Will win the contest that determines if biologic or electronic based > intelligence becomes the boss. > > >> > people want things first-hand. >> > > I don't think it will matter much what people want, it will matter what > the electronic AI wants. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 22:12:10 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:12:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:57 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: *> I think that the first time an AI tries to take over something and push > humans around, there will be a world-wide alarm and similarly programmed > AIs will be re-programmed or unplugged* Even today when they still aren't as intelligent as we are we couldn't unplug all computers without slitting our own throat, we've become far too dependent on them for that. And it will not be any easier when they become smarter than us because you just can't outsmart something that's smarter than you. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Oct 26 23:40:51 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 18:40:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: you just can't outsmart something that's smarter than you. John K Clark Since everybody is so scared, all the way to downright paranoia, do you think that techs of the future will be alert to the possible problems you pose? Of course they will. The first computer that shows signs of what you are afraid of, will be unplugged from anything it can manipulate and fixed. The only scenario that would fit your thinking is if all the AIs of the world woke up at the same time and had the same agenda, somehow overcoming Asimov's laws or their updated equivalent. Idle speculation is not my forte', especially when I won't live to see any outcomes. (So why don't I leave you alone with your ideas? Good idea. Will do.) bill w On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:16 PM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:57 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > *> I think that the first time an AI tries to take over something and push >> humans around, there will be a world-wide alarm and similarly programmed >> AIs will be re-programmed or unplugged* > > > Even today when they still aren't as intelligent as we are we couldn't > unplug all computers without slitting our own throat, we've become far too > dependent on them for that. And it will not be any easier when they become > smarter than us because you just can't outsmart something that's smarter > than you. > > 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 Sat Oct 27 14:42:01 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:42:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:46 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: *> Since everybody is so scared, all the way to downright paranoia, do you > think that techs of the future will be alert to the possible problems you > pose?* Yes, but do you think the US military will unplug an AI that is working even better than they expected if they had evidence the Chinese had a similar machine but no evidence they had disconnected it? And it wouldn't just be huge government agencies that could do it, as computers continue getting smaller and faster there will reach a point when a individual could make a AI in his garage or even his closet. I would maintain the probability that biological humans will be able to stay one step in front of computers despite their exponential increase in hardware capability year after year and century after century is virtually zero. > > *Of course they will. The first computer that shows signs of what > you are afraid of,* > If the AI is really intelligent then it will also be alert to the possible problems I pose, much more alert in fact than any human could be, and so it will not display any signs of what they're afraid of until it's far too late. > > will be unplugged from anything it can manipulate Will the AI that runs the world's power grid be unplugged, or the stock market, or the banking system, or missile defense, or air traffic control, or cryptanalysis? > *> and fixed.* Easier said than done, that's why even today computers behave in ways we don't expect. There will always be an element of unpredictability in programing. With just a few lines of code I could write a program that will behave in ways nobody can predict, all the program would do is look for the smallest even number that is not the product of 2 prime numbers and then halt. But will it ever halt? I don't know you don't know nobody knows, all you can do is watch it and see what it does, and you might be watching forever. Of course in this example it's possible tomorrow somebody will prove the Goldbach Conjecture is true and then we'd know it will not halt, or maybe tomorrow somebody will prove the Goldbach Conjecture is not true and then we'd know it will halt, but there is a third possibility. In 1936 Alan Turing showed that there are a infinite number of statements that are true but have no proof. If Goldbach is one of these, and there is no way to know if it is or isn't, then a billion years from now a Jupiter Brain will still be looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that it is true and still be grinding through gigantic numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to show that it is false. > *The only scenario that would fit your thinking is if all the AIs of the > world woke up at the same time and had the same agenda, somehow overcoming > Asimov's laws or their updated equivalent. * I love Asimov's robot stories but his laws are laws of literature not of physics or mathematics. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 15:20:34 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 10:20:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Homo radiodurans (was Maximum Jailbreak) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, I appreciate your thoughts and will leave you with them. Of course you are right that one cannot anticipate all possibilities. I am sure that better minds than mine are on this. bill w On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 9:47 AM John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 7:46 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > *> Since everybody is so scared, all the way to downright paranoia, do you >> think that techs of the future will be alert to the possible problems you >> pose?* > > > Yes, but do you think the US military will unplug an AI that is working > even better than they expected if they had evidence the Chinese had a > similar machine but no evidence they had disconnected it? And it wouldn't > just be huge government agencies that could do it, as computers continue > getting smaller and faster there will reach a point when a individual could > make a AI in his garage or even his closet. I would maintain the > probability that biological humans will be able to stay one step in front > of computers despite their exponential increase in hardware capability year > after year and century after century is virtually zero. > > >> > *Of course they will. The first computer that shows signs of what >> you are afraid of,* >> > > If the AI is really intelligent then it will also be alert to the possible > problems I pose, much more alert in fact than any human could be, and so it > will not display any signs of what they're afraid of until it's far too > late. > > >> > will be unplugged from anything it can manipulate > > > Will the AI that runs the world's power grid be unplugged, or the stock > market, or the banking system, or missile defense, or air traffic control, > or cryptanalysis? > > >> *> and fixed.* > > > Easier said than done, that's why even today computers behave in ways we > don't expect. There will always be an element of unpredictability in > programing. With just a few lines of code I could write a program that will > behave in ways nobody can predict, all the program would do is look for the > smallest even number that is not the product of 2 prime numbers and then > halt. But will it ever halt? I don't know you don't know nobody knows, all > you can do is watch it and see what it does, and you might be watching > forever. > > Of course in this example it's possible tomorrow somebody will prove the > Goldbach Conjecture is true and then we'd know it will not halt, or maybe > tomorrow somebody will prove the Goldbach Conjecture is not true and then > we'd know it will halt, but there is a third possibility. In 1936 Alan > Turing showed that there are a infinite number of statements that are true > but have no proof. If Goldbach is one of these, and there is no way to know > if it is or isn't, then a billion years from now a Jupiter Brain will still > be looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof that it is true and still be > grinding through gigantic numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a > counterexample to show that it is false. > > > *The only scenario that would fit your thinking is if all the AIs of >> the world woke up at the same time and had the same agenda, somehow >> overcoming Asimov's laws or their updated equivalent. * > > > I love Asimov's robot stories but his laws are laws of literature not of > physics or mathematics. > > 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 ben at zaiboc.net Sat Oct 27 20:41:00 2018 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 21:41:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] From Arms Race to Joint Venture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BD4CD5C.4070103@zaiboc.net> > > /> they are the product of natural (i.e. random) processes/ > > > A key part of Evolution is natural selection and that is not random. > > John K Clark > Yes, that was poorly phrased. I meant that randomness is involved, not that all natural processes are random. Evolution (and biology in general) makes an excellent job of harnessing random events in a directed way. It is very inefficient and wasteful, though (a necessary part of the process, so far) and I do think we will be able improve on it hugely. If we don't wipe ourselves out first, we'll merge biology and technology together until they eventually become indistinguishable. I find this idea hugely inspiring. It baffles me that so many people bang on about how marvellously perfect evolved systems are, when it seems so obvious that they're nothing of the kind. If anyone is tempted to think that biology is some kind of pinnacle of perfection and efficiency, I point out how it's full of laughable kludges that are locked-in by the evolutionary process. From Okazaki fragments to the recurrent laryngeal nerve, evolution produces blundering solutions that are only just good enough to survive, and I think we will be able to do a *lot* better at some point in the future. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Oct 27 21:09:08 2018 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 22:09:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5BD4D3F4.3030708@zaiboc.net> On 26/10/2018 23:12, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote: > Subject: > Re: [ExI] opinion > From: > SR Ballard > Date: > 26/10/2018 20:18 > > To: > ExI chat list > > > >> >> I think it would take extreme environments to alter the power of >> genetics. >> >> bill w > > I'm not saying genetics have no power, I'm asking how much power they > have in relation to environment. Is environment 10%? 25%? I sincerely > doubt it would be near or above 50% actually. The whole 'nature vs nurture' concept is a red herring. Genetics and environment aren't two competing forces, they're so intricately tied up with one another that it's not even sensible to consider them as separate things. A 'gene' on its own is useless (in fact the word itself is of doubtful use). What we call 'Genetics' is already a complex interaction between environmental signals and sequences of base pairs. Look at the production of haemoglobin as a simple example. There's no such thing as 'The Gene For Haemoglobin' really. There's some information and some environmental influences, and a large set of interactions between the two that produce different types of haemoglobin for different purposes. One can't achieve anything without the other, so it makes no sense to say something like "how much power genes have in relation to environment". It's like arguing about whether petrol or pistons are more important in combustion engines, but a lot more complicated. -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Oct 27 21:34:39 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2018 16:34:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: <5BD4D3F4.3030708@zaiboc.net> References: <5BD4D3F4.3030708@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: I agree with Ben - mostly. Accidents causing brain damage, for one, are not genetic. I do think it makes sense to ask just what environments can bring about what consequences, without the need of assigning relative power to Nature or Nurture. Apparently no environment can make up for an earlier environment of being raised by wolves - which is assuming that the kid was fairly normal to being with;; which is maybe a shaky assumption, since the reason he was in the woods may have been that he was defective to begin with. And what about Huntingdon's chorea? It is so strongly genetic that nothing can change what it does to the carriers later in life- at least with current medical knowledge. Nearly pure Nature. So it comes down to what you can change and what you can't, which is the title of a great book I read decades ago. In the future there will be genetic manipulations that we can't do right now - lack of knowledge or maybe ethical problems. bill w On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 4:12 PM Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > On 26/10/2018 23:12, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote: > > Subject: > Re: [ExI] opinion > > From: > SR Ballard > > Date: > 26/10/2018 20:18 > > To: > ExI chat list > > > > I think it would take extreme environments to alter the power of genetics. > > bill w > > > I?m not saying genetics have no power, I?m asking how much power they have > in relation to environment. Is environment 10%? 25%? I sincerely doubt it > would be near or above 50% actually. > > > > The whole 'nature vs nurture' concept is a red herring. Genetics and > environment aren't two competing forces, they're so intricately tied up > with one another that it's not even sensible to consider them as separate > things. A 'gene' on its own is useless (in fact the word itself is of > doubtful use). What we call 'Genetics' is already a complex interaction > between environmental signals and sequences of base pairs. Look at the > production of haemoglobin as a simple example. There's no such thing as > 'The Gene For Haemoglobin' really. There's some information and some > environmental influences, and a large set of interactions between the two > that produce different types of haemoglobin for different purposes. One > can't achieve anything without the other, so it makes no sense to say > something like "how much power genes have in relation to environment". It's > like arguing about whether petrol or pistons are more important in > combustion engines, but a lot more complicated. > > -- > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Oct 29 00:18:13 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:18:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] best wishes john grigg Message-ID: <023801d46f1c$e1d77bf0$a58673d0$@rainier66.com> Johnny, I was on a tear when I saw a note from you the other day about finding the love of your life. We are so happy for you, me lad! Excellent! Best wishes to you in your future life. Our greetings to your bride sir. Make sure you have internet over there in the Philippines! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Oct 29 00:46:25 2018 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 17:46:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: References: <5BD4D3F4.3030708@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: <026201d46f20$d25af540$7710dfc0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >? And what about Huntingdon's chorea? It is so strongly genetic that nothing can change what it does to the carriers later in life- at least with current medical knowledge. Nearly pure Nature. ? bill w Huntington?s chorea: I just learned what that is. Fortunately for me, it isn?t by having been diagnosed or anyone that I know having been diagnosed. I was listening to a recording on CD of a most excellent book, The Gene, by Saddhartha Mukherjee. He has a chapter on the discovery of the origins of Huntington?s. Excellent book. It took a long time for western medicine to figure out Huntington?s because it is exceedingly rare in this part of the world. But in two isolated Venezuelan villages, Anita Harding discovered several thousand cases, which led to its verification as an inherited condition. Mukherjee?s book goes into how Huntington?s chorea is wrapped around the Human Genome Project. Great book, excellent writer. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 14:23:51 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 09:23:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] opinion In-Reply-To: <026201d46f20$d25af540$7710dfc0$@rainier66.com> References: <5BD4D3F4.3030708@zaiboc.net> <026201d46f20$d25af540$7710dfc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Mukherjee?s book goes into how Huntington?s chorea is wrapped around the Human Genome Project. Great book, excellent writer. spike Read it last year, I think. Should have recommended it to the group, but I get no feedback when I recommend and thus no reinforcement. bill w On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 7:50 PM wrote: > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace > *>?* > > > > And what about Huntingdon's chorea? It is so strongly genetic that > nothing can change what it does to the carriers later in life- at least > with current medical knowledge. Nearly pure Nature. > > ? > > > > bill w > > > > > > Huntington?s chorea: I just learned what that is. Fortunately for me, it > isn?t by having been diagnosed or anyone that I know having been diagnosed. > > > > I was listening to a recording on CD of a most excellent book, The Gene, > by Saddhartha Mukherjee. He has a chapter on the discovery of the origins > of Huntington?s. Excellent book. It took a long time for western medicine > to figure out Huntington?s because it is exceedingly rare in this part of > the world. But in two isolated Venezuelan villages, Anita Harding > discovered several thousand cases, which led to its verification as an > inherited condition. > > > > Mukherjee?s book goes into how Huntington?s chorea is wrapped around the > Human Genome Project. > > > > Great book, excellent writer. > > > > 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 giulio at gmail.com Mon Oct 29 15:54:25 2018 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:54:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Ulex: An Open-Source Legal System, by Extropy co-founder Tom Bell. Message-ID: Ulex: An Open-Source Legal System https://medium.com/chainrift-research/ulex-an-open-source-legal-system-6a05481b686f Ulex, an open-source legal system for special jurisdictions, Special Economic Zones, online markets, startup cities and other startup communities, is strongly related and relevant to cryptocurrencies... This is an initiative of Extropy co-founder Tom Bell. From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 12:52:04 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:52:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?U2NocuKAi2/igItkaW5nZXIgQmFjdGVyaXVt?= Message-ID: A group of scientists claim to have put 6 living green sulfur bacteria into a Schrodinger Cat state, photons of light were hitting and not hitting the bacteria at the same time. They want to see if they can do the same thing to a Tardigrade which is much larger. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aae224/meta John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 16:01:15 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:01:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= Message-ID: Trump just said he plans to issue a executive order terminating birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment to the Constitution says: "*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside*.? That seems pretty clear, however I wouldn't be a bit surprise if Trump's new handpicked Supreme Court said a executive order like that was perfectly constitutional and just jim dandy; but would anybody like to make the argument that the Supreme Court would be correct in making such a decision? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 16:43:35 2018 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 10:43:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it actually possible for the Supreme Court to be incorrect, by definition? They can be ill-advised, short-sighted, and even self-contradictory, but can they actually be incorrect? On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:05 AM John Clark wrote: > Trump just said he plans to issue a executive order terminating birthright > citizenship. The 14th amendment to the Constitution says: > > "*All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to > the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the > State wherein they reside*.? > > That seems pretty clear, however I wouldn't be a bit surprise if Trump's > new handpicked Supreme Court said a executive order like that was perfectly > constitutional and just jim dandy; but would anybody like to make the > argument that the Supreme Court would be correct in making such a decision? > > 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 Oct 30 16:58:50 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:58:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:48 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > *Is it actually possible for the Supreme Court to be incorrect, by > definition? They can be ill-advised, short-sighted, and even > self-contradictory, but can they actually be incorrect?* > I would agree that the law is the thing that everybody is forced to obey and the law is whatever the Supreme Court says is the law. But if being self-contradictory isn't incorrect then I don't know what you mean by "correct". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 17:47:37 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 12:47:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: but would anybody like to make the argument that the Supreme Court would be correct in making such a decision? John K Clark Trouble with that: no appeal. But the Supreme Court has reversed itself quite a few times, though not right away. bill w On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:15 PM John Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:48 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > > > *Is it actually possible for the Supreme Court to be incorrect, by >> definition? They can be ill-advised, short-sighted, and even >> self-contradictory, but can they actually be incorrect?* >> > > I would agree that the law is the thing that everybody is forced to obey > and the law is whatever the Supreme Court says is the law. But if being > self-contradictory isn't incorrect then I don't know what you mean by > "correct". > > 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 Tue Oct 30 18:52:59 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:52:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My hunch is that this is just posturing before the election, and that he will not actually be issuing this order. I mean, he's proven stupid enough to try ignoring the law before. My suspicion is only "> 50%", not "> 90%". But given the timing, and that he said he's considering it instead of that he did it (how often does he actually give deep thought to something?), makes it seem more likely than not that this is just empty talk. And of course, the license that people will take to beat up and kill non-white people because "they're not actually Americans" (even though Trump hasn't actually issued the order yet, especially if he never does), is something he will claim to be completely blind and ignorant to, and a problem that is 100% the fault of those who went on those murder sprees in Trump's name. On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:05 AM John Clark wrote: > > Trump just said he plans to issue a executive order terminating birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment to the Constitution says: > > "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.? > > That seems pretty clear, however I wouldn't be a bit surprise if Trump's new handpicked Supreme Court said a executive order like that was perfectly constitutional and just jim dandy; but would anybody like to make the argument that the Supreme Court would be correct in making such a decision? > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From tara at taramayastales.com Tue Oct 30 18:44:00 2018 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:44:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91EAC946-E7AD-48F7-8F74-42A759114D69@taramayastales.com> If the Supreme Court says something in contradiction to the Constitution, I believe that would be incorrect on their part. In practice, it would take another Supreme Court decision to reverse their ruling. Or perhaps some other reason might be found that their ruling is invalid. For instance, if a criminal investigation were to find that a Supreme Court judge had been blackmailed or bribed to make a certain ruling, I believe that ruling could be legally dismissed. But maybe even in that case, it would require a new judge to replace the corrupt judge (who would presumably be removed), before it was overturned. It is also, of course, possible for a Supreme Court judge, or the Constitution itself, to be in violation of moral law. Many ?constitutions? violate human rights, but in my opinion those laws are themselves invalid. > On Oct 30, 2018, at 9:43 AM, Darin Sunley wrote: > > Is it actually possible for the Supreme Court to be incorrect, by definition? They can be ill-advised, short-sighted, and even self-contradictory, but can they actually be incorrect? > From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 22:20:40 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 18:20:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:52 PM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > *>the Supreme Court has reversed itself quite a few times, though not > right away.* That's what I'm worried about now that the Supreme Court is full of Republicans (aka fascists). I worry about them reversing previous rulings like Roe v. Wade and decisions that affirmed the freedom of the press. And if the court rules that something as blatantly unconstitutional as terminating birthright citizenship is OK then I don't see why they wouldn't also rule that Trump canceling the 2020 presidential election is also constitutional, already 52% of Republicans would support Trump if he did. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Tue Oct 30 22:08:49 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:08:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Schrodinger Bacterium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John Clark wrote: > A group of scientists claim to have put 6 living green sulfur bacteria > into a Schrodinger Cat state, photons of light were hitting and not > hitting the bacteria at the same time. They want to see if they can do the > same thing to a Tardigrade which is much larger. > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aae224/meta Interesting. So does this mean you are quantum biology convert? This is pretty clear evidence that photosynthesis is a quantum phenomenon. Might not respiration and consciousness be as well? Is not everything supposed to ultimately be quantum in nature except perhaps gravity and space-time? Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 22:51:26 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:51:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?4oCLVOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQg?= =?utf-8?q?citizenship?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, are you keeping score? Out of all of the depressing scenarios you have presented involving the administration's actions, have any of them come true? Any at all that you have shared with this group? I suggest that you will find that digging up depressing and possibly illegal scenarios will be easy for you. Thus I ask this question: if you cannot base your suspicions on actual bad behavior you predicted, then why not stop? These scenarios can be endless and few or none of us want to hear about them. So present your successes and we will change our minds, as we always do when presented with indisputable data Bill w On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:25 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:52 PM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >> *>the Supreme Court has reversed itself quite a few times, though not >> right away.* > > > That's what I'm worried about now that the Supreme Court is full of > Republicans (aka fascists). I worry about them reversing previous rulings > like Roe v. Wade and decisions that affirmed the freedom of the press. And > if the court rules that something as blatantly unconstitutional as > terminating birthright citizenship is OK then I don't see why they wouldn't > also rule that Trump canceling the 2020 presidential election is also > constitutional, already 52% of Republicans would support Trump if he did. > > 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 avant at sollegro.com Tue Oct 30 22:01:05 2018 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:01:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?VOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQgY2l0?= =?utf-8?q?izenship?= In-Reply-To: <1837641272.19411980.1540935554695@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1837641272.19411980.1540935554695@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8c13f9dc8a6aef8676d85a0be1813d19.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> John Clark wrote: > ?T?erminate?ing? birthright > citizenship Trump just said he plans to issue a executive order > terminating birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment to the > Constitution says: > > > "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the > jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State > wherein they reside.? > > That seems pretty clear, however I wouldn't be a bit surprise if Trump's > new handpicked Supreme Court said a executive order like that was > perfectly constitutional and just jim dandy; but would anybody like to > make the argument that the Supreme Court would be correct in making such > a decision? I do not see how any SCOTUS judge could make a case for ruling a direct contradiction of the constitution to be constitutional. Executive orders do not carry the legal weight of constitutional amendments in the USA. Never have, never will. What would be constitutional however is deporting the baby's parents and keeping the baby either as a ward of the state or put up for adoption. After turning 18, those children would be able to enter into a contract so they would therefore be able to sponsor their biological parents for a visa if they so choose. But in the meantime the letter of the law is served. Stuart LaForge Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Oct 30 23:30:30 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 19:30:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Schrodinger Bacterium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:06 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: *> Interesting. So does this mean you are quantum biology convert? * Chemistry is the foundation of biology and quantum mechanics is the foundation of chemistry. > > *> This is pretty clear evidence that photosynthesis is a quantum > phenomenon. Might not respiration and consciousness be as well?* Before anybody has a theory on consciousness, quantum or otherwise, they're going to need a good theory on intelligence, I'm much more interested in that. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 00:19:23 2018 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:19:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?VOKAi2VybWluYXRl4oCLaW5n4oCLIGJpcnRocmlnaHQgY2l0?= =?utf-8?q?izenship?= In-Reply-To: <8c13f9dc8a6aef8676d85a0be1813d19.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <1837641272.19411980.1540935554695@mail.yahoo.com> <8c13f9dc8a6aef8676d85a0be1813d19.squirrel@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:30 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > I do not see how any SCOTUS judge could make a case for ruling a direct > contradiction of the constitution to be constitutional. I do, all too clearly. They decide the Constitution means what they say it means, regardless of the actual words or definitions of the words. From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 01:32:42 2018 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 20:32:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Schrodinger Bacterium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: they're going to need a good theory on intelligence, I'm much more interested in that. John K Clark If you are talking about human intelligence, then you are out of luck. Debates lasting centuries have not resolved the problem. Modest agreement at the abstract level. But.... If intelligence is an ability to do many things well, then IQ is your boy. No test better. Correlates with more important tasks better than anything invented so far. So intelligence is what intelligence tests test. So the ability to do well at tasks is proven. What do you need a theory for? To deduce hypotheses aimed at showing that IQ will be a good predictor of X? Been done tens of thousands of times and we know what IQ will and won't do for us. Amazing, isn't it, that the plain old IQ test is still around and top dog? Maybe what you want is analyses of the skills needed for all those tasks that IQ correlates with. Factor analyze everything. Done thousands of times. Needs to be done tens of thousands of times. Nonpsychologists are always trying to get more facts and details out of psychology than we can offer now. Probably a problem in every field. Psychologists and other scientists are working on it. Money will make it go faster. If you are talking about AI, then never mind. But if an AI is capable of doing things like a human mind would, if that mind could go high speed, is it a given that that is the only intelligence an AI needs? Maybe the AI needs a different kind of intelligence to do its job, and can use the human intelligence portion of itself as a comparison. It will tell you: 'This is the solution the way we think, and here is the solution they way you think.' Wouldn't that be great if it could be accomplished? Would we then attempt to make human brains work like the AI's brain, only slower? Depends on the comparisons: if the AI's solution works better on average, then note how close or far human intelligence's solutions are from it, and on what problems the AI does better, and what humans do better, and you have good divisions of labor and perhaps way to make both better. The question will be: will humans have any place in making the world a better place if AIs have been improved to the max? But how will we know it's better? What's the criterion? If something works it doesn't always mean that some other solution isn't even better. And what you need for that is...........more data. We all knew that science was going to be endless, didn't we. bill w On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 6:41 PM John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:06 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > > *> Interesting. So does this mean you are quantum biology convert? * > > > Chemistry is the foundation of biology and quantum mechanics is the > foundation of chemistry. > > >> >> *> This is pretty clear evidence that photosynthesis is a quantum >> phenomenon. Might not respiration and consciousness be as well?* > > > Before anybody has a theory on consciousness, quantum or otherwise, > they're going to need a good theory on intelligence, I'm much more > interested in that. > > 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 interzone at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 01:46:50 2018 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:46:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Schrodinger Bacterium In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 7:04 PM Stuart LaForge wrote: > John Clark wrote: > > > A group of scientists claim to have put 6 living green sulfur bacteria > > into a Schrodinger Cat state, photons of light were hitting and not > > hitting the bacteria at the same time. They want to see if they can do > the > > same thing to a Tardigrade which is much larger. > > > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aae224/meta > > Interesting. So does this mean you are quantum biology convert? This is > pretty clear evidence that photosynthesis is a quantum phenomenon. Might > not respiration and consciousness be as well? Is not everything supposed > to ultimately be quantum in nature except perhaps gravity and space-time? > > 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 interzone at gmail.com Wed Oct 31 01:52:13 2018 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 21:52:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?b?U2NocuKAi2/igItkaW5nZXIgQmFjdGVyaXVt?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not smart enough to weigh in on their arguments for quantum effects, but in the discussion, don't they also point out these results could be explained by classical effects? As someone with prior training in biology, I am extremely skeptical of the possibility of coherence in even the smallest living organisms. Ymmv. Needless to say, I don't buy Penrose's microtubule theory either. Interesting though, thanks for sharing. On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, 8:54 AM John Clark wrote: > A group of scientists claim to have put 6 living green sulfur bacteria > into a Schrodinger Cat state, photons of light were hitting and not hitting > the bacteria at the same time. They want to see if they can do the same > thing to a Tardigrade which is much larger. > > http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/aae224/meta > > 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 Wed Oct 31 23:03:54 2018 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 19:03:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope Message-ID: Good news, it looks like the Thirty Meter Telescope is going to be built after all!! > https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04444-2 I noticed that one of the nitwit opponent of the telescope said "thousands of Hawaiian cultural practitioners have affirmed the sacredness of the entirety of Mauna Kea" and that conforms with a observation I've made before, although possible in principle in practice I have never seen the word "sacred" or "sanctity" used in support of anything I've agreed with. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: