From giulio at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 04:54:41 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 05:54:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I agree. Also, one needs some kind of visual, intuitive understanding (even if very imprecise) of what is really going on, otherwise one gets stuck. On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 5:37 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 12:56 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> >> *> QBism is a valid interpretation of QM. It uses all the same maths >> and leads to the same answers. However, it suffers from the same >> problems that Copenhagen and other epistemic interpretations suffer from.* > > > I agree. Neither QBism or Copenhagen even attempts to answer any > ontological questions, they claim if you can make good predictions then > your work is done, both are really just slight variations of the Shut Up > And Calculate Quantum Interpretation; and that's fine if you're just > interested in engineering considerations and don't care about understanding > the nature of being. > > 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 Sun Dec 1 13:34:08 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 08:34:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:58 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *one needs some kind of visual, intuitive understanding (even if very > imprecise) of what is really going on, otherwise one gets stuck.* > Although an engineer might It's hard for me to believe any productive scientist could really believe in instrumentalism. How could you have any passion for your work if after years of arduous effort you develop a new theory but the only thing you can conclude from it is that if you set up an experiment in a certain way the needle on a voltmeter will move from a 7 to a 8? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 1 14:59:15 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 06:59:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <001801d5a857$e69986e0$b3cc94a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 11:58 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat > wrote: >>? one needs some kind of visual, intuitive understanding (even if very imprecise) of what is really going on, otherwise one gets stuck. >?Although an engineer might It's hard for me to believe any productive scientist could really believe in instrumentalism? John K Clark As in the days of Galileo and Darwin, theory is pointing in a direction we do not wish to embrace. We recognize that the distasteful theory seems to work well, and the alternatives seem clumsy and contrived. So it is with quantum mechanics, a theory so ugly it features ambiguously dead cats, infinitely many universes spawned continuously, particles popping into existence and back out again, all manner of logic-defying nonsense, when we can see where it really points: we are all digital simulations, avatars, in a digital universe. Of course all this can happen in a sim. Is it so philosophically revolting to be an avatar in some grand software experiment in self-awareness? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Dec 1 22:10:33 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2019 14:10:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <1382758420.4676981.1575161336887@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <1382758420.4676981.1575161336887@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20191201141033.Horde.BIkPDnhT03e51UTyFUp18fM@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting BillK: >> It seems to violate the Copernican principle that the moon should >> dance at the whim of mere monkeys and that seems like a slippery slope >> to solipsism. >> > > It does indeed! But that's not what QBism claims. :) > Their description of a fuzzy mass of probabilities only applies to > quantum states. > They see the collapse of the wave function as an operator action > causing a result which updates the operator belief. Not that the > operator belief caused a specific result. But multiple quantum systems in their quantum states must somehow sum to classical states in aggregate. The messy ignorance and randomness of the quantum world must somehow give rise to the clockwork certainty and predictability of Newtonian mechanics in the limit of large numbers. Ontological interpretations have decoherence to help explain how this happens. But epistemological theories like QBism can't appeal to decoherence because they don't believe the wavefunction is real. Why would a bunch of imaginary wavefunctions interact with one another to cancel out their wavelike properties? Why is the physics of a singe electron more complicated than the physics of the moon? >> In ontological interpretations of QM, such as MWI however, the moon is >> always there and in every possible phase and position while it is we >> precious observers that may or may not be there to witness it. > > QBism also believes in the moon.? :)? The idea that the rest of the > world doesn't exist until I look at it (while tempting) is pretty > obviously not correct. The universe existed before humans appeared, > even before life appeared. It is comforting that QBists profess to believe in the moon even if they can't explain how it arises from their physical theories. You speak of the universe before life evolved. Where did that universe go? If you insist that it is in the same location as our present universe, only the present universe is in a different informational state, say a different arrangement of atoms, then that is fine. But then you are forced to admit that nothing precludes a different patch of space-time from having a similar arrangement of atoms as our past universe. And given the same set of laws of nature everywhere throughout infinite space and thus infinite chances for the atoms to fill together just right, such a result would seem to be guaranteed. And if two arrangements of atoms are identical, then can they not be said to be the same arrangement? > As I read it, QBism is presently only arguing a POV about quantum wave > function collapse. > They claim this is better than the Many Worlds interpretation which > they say is meaningless and no help to quantum theory research. Meaning is purely subjective, a Bayesian should know that. The same alarm call meaning "danger!" to one brain might mean "dinner!" to another. The alarm call itself, is blank and meaningless placeholder for a subjective attribution; as all such symbols and messages are. Which is why the swastikas painted on prehistoric cave walls don't mean the same thing swastikas do today. Perhaps rather than complaining about MWI, QBists would be better served using their Bayesian powers to design an experiment to rule MWI out. > An > infinite universe doesn't necessarily mean that every possible past, > present and future exists somewhere. > Some infinities are bigger than others! The model I present is predicated on the laws of physics, apart from the values of certain constants, being truly universal and valid throughout all of infinite space. General relativity rests on a similar postulate. Also, I assume space is a continuum so it is aleph-1 at least. That should be plenty of room, especially with the whole thing expanding Hilbert Hotel style due to dark energy. Stuart LaForge From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 06:17:04 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 01:17:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is it true? Message-ID: Scott Alexander wrote about connections between Alcor and People Unlimited: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/ and links to this post by Mike Darwin: https://www.reddit.com/r/cryonics/comments/ddh39j/how_cryonics_is_being_turned_into_a/ How much of it is true? I would be very upset about any connections between Alcor and cultists. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 20:32:46 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:32:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is it true? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You should ask about this on Alcor's Private Forum: https://alcorfoundation.org/forums/index.php John K Clark On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:20 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Scott Alexander wrote about connections between Alcor and People Unlimited: > > https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/ > > and links to this post by Mike Darwin: > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/cryonics/comments/ddh39j/how_cryonics_is_being_turned_into_a/ > > > How much of it is true? > > I would be very upset about any connections between Alcor and cultists. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Dec 5 13:52:27 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:52:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The largest and the smallest Black Holes Message-ID: In the last month astronomers have broken records, they have found both the largest and the smallest Black Holes in the universe, at least so far. The largest Black Hole is 40 billion solar masses plus or minus 800 million. A 40-BILLION SOLAR MASS BLACK HOLE IN THE CENTRAL GALAXY OF ABELL 85 Even more interesting is the discovery of the smallest Black Hole, it's probably 3.3 solar masses although it could be as large as 6.1 or as small as 2.6. A low-mass black hole?giant star binary system There are theoretical reasons to think a non-rotating Neutron Star can't get any more massive than 2.16 solar masses before it collapses into a Black Hole (unless Quark Stars made of Strange Matter exist), although they might be as massive as 2.7 solar masses if they're spinning close to the speed of light. But If a Neutron Star were spinning that fast it would have a huge magnetic field which would slow it down so it couldn't keep that rate of spin for long, astronomically speaking. Magnetars might be Neutron Stars of that sort, and short lifetime might be why they're so rare, only 23 have ever been discovered. The most massive Neutron Star ever observed is 2.14 solar masses, very close to the theoretical limit. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 7 13:30:26 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2019 08:30:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is reversing the aging process in humans only 20 years away? Message-ID: This Sunday (Dec 8) on the CBS show 60 Minutes there is an interview with geneticist George Church, he says reversing the aging process in humans is only 20 years away. Church is certainly no crackpot, he is a professor at Harvard Medical School, has written 515 peer-reviewed papers, and has 143 patents. Leading geneticist says reversing the aging process in humans could be 20 years away John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 8 07:06:15 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 02:06:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rafal: Is slavery a technology? It is interesting to try and think of at what point the first slaves emerged. Power hierarchies already exist among animals but when did the subjugation of another species or kin group begin? I think that subjugation is a pre-technological alternative to wiping out another species entirely. A kind of teleological within-species parasitism. Maybe replace 'technological species' with 'teleological species'. All species capable of planning should be able to subjugate. Sometimes I wonder if it is possible that there was a massive within-species subjugation ending in rebellion, long ago. It seems likely to me, for some reason. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Dec 9 04:36:17 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 20:36:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <1504619130.4791720.1575231097556@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <001801d5a857$e69986e0$b3cc94a0$@rainier66.com> <1504619130.4791720.1575231097556@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20191208203617.Horde.nEE7OlXAPci82yWDQ4HHWyh@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Spike: > As in the days of Galileo and Darwin, theory is pointing in a > direction we do not wish to embrace.? We recognize that the > distasteful theory seems to work well, and the alternatives seem > clumsy and contrived.? So it is with quantum mechanics, a theory so > ugly it features ambiguously dead cats, infinitely many universes > spawned continuously, particles popping into existence and back out > again, all manner of logic-defying nonsense, when we can see where > it really points: we are all digital simulations, avatars, in a > digital universe. The universe is analog and digital at the same time. Particles are digital, but waves are analog; both are physical. It is unlikely that we live in a classical computer-based simulation. There is just no way to adequately simulate infinity with discrete math. The idea that we could have conceived of and mapped the real number continuum so rigorously while living in a discrete pixelated simulation seems highly unlikely. And why so much grandeur and extravagance inherent to our reality? Every engineer I ever met was mostly concerned with trying to do more with less. If the universe was engineered, then a panoramic simulation would be entirely possible. Similarly, if the universe was engineered, then super HD subatomic resolution would likewise be entirely possible. But to have both sweeping panoramas as well as super-high-resolution details running in parallel, in a single application? That's not possible, at least not with classical computers. It is because of rounding errors in floating point arithmetic. Here is a good article about it. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/806-3568/ncg_goldberg.html What engineer in his right mind would program an application with both the Higg's boson and the Virgo supercluster on the off chance that some user might build both a Hubble telescope and an LHC to discover them? Engineers tend to economize resources therefore the universe seems too extravagant to have been engineered. The infinite continuum cannot be simulated. At least not on a classical computer. That being said might not EVerett's alternate universes be "simulations" of one another running on a quantum computer? Perhaps. > Of course all this can happen in a sim.? Is it so philosophically > revolting to be an avatar in some grand software experiment in > self-awareness? It's not revolting, it just violates Occam's razor. Remember that in calling us simulations you are assuming a simulator. That doesn't answer the ultimate ontological question of being, "why there is something rather than nothing?" It just defers it to base level of reality. Where does the simulator live? What are the physics of the base universe? etc. Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 9 05:54:28 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 21:54:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <20191208203617.Horde.nEE7OlXAPci82yWDQ4HHWyh@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <001801d5a857$e69986e0$b3cc94a0$@rainier66.com> <1504619130.4791720.1575231097556@mail.yahoo.com> <20191208203617.Horde.nEE7OlXAPci82yWDQ4HHWyh@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <002e01d5ae55$1f23f100$5d6bd300$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 8:36 PM To: ExI Chat Cc: Stuart LaForge Subject: Re: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change >...It just defers it to base level of reality. Where does the simulator live? What are the physics of the base universe? etc. Stuart LaForge The Simulator doesn't actually live. He is yet another Simulation. It's sims all the way up. spike From giulio at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 07:46:08 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 08:46:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Cultural enablers and narratives for sustainable human expansion into space Message-ID: Cultural enablers and narratives for sustainable human expansion into space The next decade, the twenties, could be another magic decade for space. The role of cultural enablers, science fiction, and religion. https://turingchurch.net/cultural-enablers-and-narratives-for-sustainable-human-expansion-into-space-ed5add6d0fc5 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 02:42:03 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 21:42:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 2:09 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Rafal: > > Is slavery a technology? It is interesting to try and think of at what > point the first slaves emerged. Power hierarchies already exist among > animals but when did the subjugation of another species or kin group > begin? I think that subjugation is a pre-technological alternative to > wiping out another species entirely. A kind of teleological within-species > parasitism. > ### This is a good way of thinking about slavery. There are physically existing tools (manacles, whips), organizational schemes, legal frameworks that are necessary to make slavery into a viable enterprise. Extracting resources by force from a hunter-gatherer is difficult - if you keep him confined, he produces no resources to be expropriated, if you let him hunt, he can easily run away. This is why hunter-gatherers usually do not practice slavery, except in the limited sense of abducting women to be used as a reproductive resource. And this is why hunter-gatherers usually promptly slaughter the men they defeat. Only once the technology of agriculture and the closely related technology of territorial state came together, it became possible to confine men cheaply and to extract enough resources to cover the cost for acquisition and confinement, plus a profit to the owner. So we could say that slavery is a social technology which, as almost all technologies, requires other enabling technologies and physical and social conditions to be useful. The analogy to parasitism is also very apt - the slave owner is a parasite that controls the slave's resources to feed and fatten himself and his offspring. --------------------------- > > Sometimes I wonder if it is possible that there was a massive > within-species subjugation ending in rebellion, long ago. It seems likely > to me, for some reason. > > ### It was more like an endemic war of everybody against almost everybody else lasting tens of thousands of years, and our minds have been shaped by it. Men's yearning for freedom evolved because those too easy to break into farm animals tended not leave any children. Women's docility when confronted with overwhelming force evolved because it gave them a chance of joining their captors' society and passing their genes along. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 04:58:20 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2019 23:58:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 2:09 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Rafal: >> >> Is slavery a technology? It is interesting to try and think of at what >> point the first slaves emerged. Power hierarchies already exist among >> animals but when did the subjugation of another species or kin group >> begin? I think that subjugation is a pre-technological alternative to >> wiping out another species entirely. A kind of teleological within-species >> parasitism. >> > > ### This is a good way of thinking about slavery. There are physically > existing tools (manacles, whips), organizational schemes, legal frameworks > that are necessary to make slavery into a viable enterprise. > > Extracting resources by force from a hunter-gatherer is difficult - if you > keep him confined, he produces no resources to be expropriated, if you let > him hunt, he can easily run away. This is why hunter-gatherers usually do > not practice slavery, except in the limited sense of abducting women to be > used as a reproductive resource. And this is why hunter-gatherers usually > promptly slaughter the men they defeat. > I agree with what you say, but I am also sure that there are some pre-technological terms of slavery or tantamount-slavery that are possible. For instance, imagine that the ruling class has conquered the best hunting/gathering ground and patrols it. If they see you hunting there, they kill you, unless you give them a cut of your spoils. This is more like feudalism than slavery. But I also imagine a hunting ground in, say, a mountain valley, which is difficult to escape from and has members of the ruling tribe posted at all exits. They kill any out-class humans who try to leave. What's more, they kill any of the trapped out-class humans who do not provide them with spoils. Here, the environment for the slave humans has been totally manufactured. >From their perspective, the way to best increase their fitness is to hunt/gather and give the spoils to their rulers to prevent their own deaths. This could take place for multiple generations, until the worldview of the slave class is completely oriented around the slavery paradigm--it will be all they know. With enough time, the slave genome/memome may become seriously ingrained. Anyway this is just to say that extreme power hierarchies (such as slavery) can exist without any physical technology. That technology makes enforcement much easier, but a slave class could be created by early tool-less humans. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 02:33:59 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:33:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:58 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > > Anyway this is just to say that extreme power hierarchies (such as > slavery) can exist without any physical technology. That technology makes > enforcement much easier, but a slave class could be created by early > tool-less humans. > ### Sure, under some special circumstances slavery should be possible without these additional technologies I discussed earlier but in general hunter-gatherers are not likely to keep slaves, much less create a genetically distinct slave lineage. Soon though the technology will exist to genetically create slaves. I recently read a delightful book, Derek K?nsken's "The Quantum Magician", where genetic slavery figures quite prominently, and adds some very surprising but logically satisfying twists to the plot. I just purchased the sequel, "The Quantum Garden". Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 16:53:04 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 10:53:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here is a book you two might find very interesting, even if it is rather old: Man's Rise to Civilization, As Shown by the Indians of North America from Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State - Peter Farb - still on Amazon >From the grub-eating Shoshone to the civilized Zunis, this is a book you cannot fail to find fascinating. It does deal with captures of members of other tribes. bill w On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 8:37 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 11:58 PM Will Steinberg > wrote: > >> >> Anyway this is just to say that extreme power hierarchies (such as >> slavery) can exist without any physical technology. That technology makes >> enforcement much easier, but a slave class could be created by early >> tool-less humans. >> > > ### Sure, under some special circumstances slavery should be possible > without these additional technologies I discussed earlier but in general > hunter-gatherers are not likely to keep slaves, much less create a > genetically distinct slave lineage. > > Soon though the technology will exist to genetically create slaves. I > recently read a delightful book, Derek K?nsken's "The Quantum Magician", > where genetic slavery figures quite prominently, and adds some very > surprising but logically satisfying twists to the plot. > > I just purchased the sequel, "The Quantum Garden". > > Rafal > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Dec 13 03:40:08 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 19:40:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <010801d5b167$04aad4f0$0e007ed0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species Here is a book you two might find very interesting, even if it is rather old: Man's Rise to Civilization, As Shown by the Indians of North America from Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State - Peter Farb - still on Amazon >From the grub-eating Shoshone to the civilized Zunis, this is a book you cannot fail to find fascinating. It does deal with captures of members of other tribes. bill w Notice how many ancient people?s eat grubs? Those things might be really tasty, and here we are missing out. Would you eat one? I just might. I would need to drink a few beers beforehand. Probably still barf, but at least then we would know. Think about it: if they are larval beetles (why did I want to spell that beatles?) they might be just the ticket: they haven?t begun developing an exoskeleton, and there?s enough volume there to make it worth it. Think about the other tasty but super-gross looking foods, such as? oysters. I am surprised that one was ever discovered. At some point, someone somewhere had to crack one of those open and say to himself: I think I will eat that. He must have been totally bonkers. Or perhaps a seashore community look at it, grossed out, caught a murderer, and told him: eat that, or we kill you. If you survive, you go free. He ate, survived, the notion spread, now we know that oysters are excellent food. If we ever went to make bugs an alterative food source, grubs could be farmed in huge numbers at low cost. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 12:33:16 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:33:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: <010801d5b167$04aad4f0$0e007ed0$@rainier66.com> References: <010801d5b167$04aad4f0$0e007ed0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=cricket+flour&crid=2MJY28UFSPKZT&sprefix=cricket%2Caps%2C150&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_6_7 On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 10:43 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species > > > > Here is a book you two might find very interesting, even if it is rather > old: > > > Man's Rise to Civilization, As Shown by the Indians of North America from > Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State - Peter Farb - still > on Amazon > > > > From the grub-eating Shoshone to the civilized Zunis, this is a book you > cannot fail to find fascinating. It does deal with captures of members of > other tribes. > > > > bill w > > > > > > Notice how many ancient people?s eat grubs? Those things might be really > tasty, and here we are missing out. Would you eat one? I just might. I > would need to drink a few beers beforehand. Probably still barf, but at > least then we would know. > > > > Think about it: if they are larval beetles (why did I want to spell that > beatles?) they might be just the ticket: they haven?t begun developing an > exoskeleton, and there?s enough volume there to make it worth it. Think > about the other tasty but super-gross looking foods, such as? oysters. I > am surprised that one was ever discovered. At some point, someone > somewhere had to crack one of those open and say to himself: I think I will > eat that. He must have been totally bonkers. Or perhaps a seashore > community look at it, grossed out, caught a murderer, and told him: eat > that, or we kill you. If you survive, you go free. He ate, survived, the > notion spread, now we know that oysters are excellent food. > > > > If we ever went to make bugs an alterative food source, grubs could be > farmed in huge numbers at low cost. > > > > 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 Dec 13 14:14:36 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 08:14:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] women Message-ID: Why are women shorter than men? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 14:20:11 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:20:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Higher Testosterone -> Higher levels of growth hormone-> greater height in men. I would also suspect that there is a natural selection in play for larger men who are able to impregnate more women. There are other theories, but the above combination makes the most sense to me. On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:16 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Why are women shorter than men? > > 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 Dec 13 15:20:51 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:20:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That would be easy to test: Do taller than average females have higher testosterone levels and shorter than average males have lower testosterone levels? I?m sure someone has done studies... By the way, the relationship appears a bit more complicated: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0020533 Note the hypothesis at the end there: males have slower maturation to slow down their height increase to historically minimize maternal cost. (Why not parental cost ? as humans _historically_ have both parents involved in childcare?) See also: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140207083836.htm Since generic and hormonal factors aren?t outside social influence and since food consumption also influences height, there?s also the issue that males tend to be better fed than females. Cf., e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4167551/ Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 13, 2019, at 6:26 AM, Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > Higher Testosterone -> Higher levels of growth hormone-> greater height in men. I would also suspect that there is a natural selection in play for larger men who are able to impregnate more women. There are other theories, but the above combination makes the most sense to me. > > > >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:16 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >> Why are women shorter than men? >> >> bill wM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 13 15:45:20 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 07:45:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002501d5b1cc$53b5dd50$fb2197f0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] women Why are women shorter than men? bill w How do we know they are? Can gender be determined? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 17:55:15 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 09:55:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: <002501d5b1cc$53b5dd50$fb2197f0$@rainier66.com> References: <002501d5b1cc$53b5dd50$fb2197f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* [ExI] women > > > > Why are women shorter than men? > > > > bill w > > > > > > How do we know they are? Can gender be determined? > In the vast majority of cases, it can. Intersex and transgender people are, by most estimates, less than 1% of the total population. And in this case Bill is talking in the strict biological sense, not the identity sense (though intersex is still an exception). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 13 19:41:42 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 11:41:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: References: <002501d5b1cc$53b5dd50$fb2197f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008101d5b1ed$58e4e8e0$0aaebaa0$@rainier66.com> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] women On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] women Why are women shorter than men? bill w How do we know they are? Can gender be determined? >?In the vast majority of cases, it can. Intersex and transgender people are, by most estimates, less than 1% of the total population. And in this case Bill is talking in the strict biological sense, not the identity sense (though intersex is still an exception). Primitive savage! Anyone is any gender they choose! {8^D Ja, I know what he meant. I was merely being my snarky self. I so hafta grow up one of these days. Just not today please. Or anytime next week: I have some pre-planned snarkiness. Society is going to pay the price for struggling to be so inclusive we are forced to include obvious silliness. Sooner or later that is going to put us in head-on collision with the macho societies which still damn well do differentiate between men and women. Adrian, we haven?t heard from you in a long time and we missed the hell outta ya bud. Hope all is well with yas. You have been the missing ingredient in several discussions here. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 19:55:30 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:55:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 9:18 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Why are women shorter than men? > I don't think we *know* why, but all it would take is for women to prefer taller men. Or for taller men to be able to lower the odds of shorter men breeding. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 20:04:41 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:04:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: <008101d5b1ed$58e4e8e0$0aaebaa0$@rainier66.com> References: <008101d5b1ed$58e4e8e0$0aaebaa0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Folks I know who are trans don?t tend to feel this as a choice. This seems similar to me how people tend to experience their sexual orientation: they didn?t choose it, though it?s probably under the influence of many factors. As for gender distinctions, check out: https://youtu.be/I-_NhPt2Xn8 Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 13, 2019, at 11:44 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > > > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > > Subject: Re: [ExI] women > > On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 7:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > Subject: [ExI] women > > Why are women shorter than men? > > bill w > > > How do we know they are? Can gender be determined? > > >?In the vast majority of cases, it can. Intersex and transgender people are, by most estimates, less than 1% of the total population. And in this case Bill is talking in the strict biological sense, not the identity sense (though intersex is still an exception). > > > Primitive savage! Anyone is any gender they choose! > > {8^D > > Ja, I know what he meant. I was merely being my snarky self. I so hafta grow up one of these days. Just not today please. Or anytime next week: I have some pre-planned snarkiness. > > Society is going to pay the price for struggling to be so inclusive we are forced to include obvious silliness. Sooner or later that is going to put us in head-on collision with the macho societies which still damn well do differentiate between men and women. > > Adrian, we haven?t heard from you in a long time and we missed the hell outta ya bud. Hope all is well with yas. You have been the missing ingredient in several discussions here. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 20:29:09 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 12:29:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: <008101d5b1ed$58e4e8e0$0aaebaa0$@rainier66.com> References: <002501d5b1cc$53b5dd50$fb2197f0$@rainier66.com> <008101d5b1ed$58e4e8e0$0aaebaa0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:41 AM wrote: > Adrian, we haven?t heard from you in a long time and we missed the hell > outta ya bud. Hope all is well with yas. You have been the missing > ingredient in several discussions here. > I've been reading the discussions here. and haven't much to say in most of them. As to me, I've been working on some deals, getting CubeCab through a certain registration that took almost two years, and finishing up some science fiction writing I promised myself I'd get done by end of year. (You might have heard of the Traveller role playing game. I've writing up a trio of sectors to add to the setting's map. Two have been published - see Datsatl & Thaku Fung at https://travellermap.com/?p=-102.467!212.853!4&options=58359 - and I just yesterday turned in the third for review - the one between them, that ties the two together and has some plot of its own.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 20:36:06 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:36:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sex again Message-ID: I see in the sports section where an ice skater is accused of sending a picture of his penis to an underage girl. We have gotten to where we think that this can scar the girl for life and the guy needs to go to prison. Is this a bit nuts? (p.i.). What if the girl had been raised in a home where the adults and children are nudists.? What would the girl say to the email photo? Maybe 'Yeah, that's one looks like all right. So what's the big deal? Making love is obscene. Photos of people having sex are so classified. Is this nuts? Well, this is what you get when you have a repressive society that is hung up on sex. Why are they hung up? because their parents were and so on back to the jungle where wearing animal skins was mandatory. Or to Eden if you like that story. Study after study shows that kids who get rational sex ed have fewer problems - lower pregnancy rates, lower sexual activity, greater use of pregnancy preventatives if sex occurs, lower sex disease rates, lower anxiety rates,and so on. Yet we refuse in many states to have sex ed at any level. Some in biology but no showing of genitals, esp. erect ones. Result - unbelievable sexual ignorance which I documented when I taught a college course in human sexual behavior. Now I realize that humans are not very rational, but facts are facts and if people want fewer sex problems in society there are clear answers which, apparently no one wants to implement. side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work well for them. The operation created a new identity of sorts which placed them in a group that has a lot more bias against them than the group there were in before. So, additional problems. And some will change back and be unhappy with that. So what's next? Choosing your race? Your species? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 21:01:16 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:01:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 12:38 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I see in the sports section where an ice skater is accused of sending a > picture of his penis to an underage girl. > > We have gotten to where we think that this can scar the girl for life and > the guy needs to go to prison. > I wonder if there are any studies on whether social expectations that this should scar the girl, is itself what causes psychological distress (especially long term) for the girl, as opposed to actually seeing genitalia. > Well, this is what you get when you have a repressive society that is hung > up on sex. Why are they hung up? because their parents were and so on > back to the jungle where wearing animal skins was mandatory. Or to Eden if > you like that story. > > Study after study shows that kids who get rational sex ed have fewer > problems - lower pregnancy rates, lower sexual activity, greater use of > pregnancy preventatives if sex occurs, lower sex disease rates, lower > anxiety rates,and so on. Yet we refuse in many states to have sex ed at > any level. Some in biology but no showing of genitals, esp. erect ones. > Result - unbelievable sexual ignorance which I documented when I taught a > college course in human sexual behavior. > Quite. Just this week I saw a meme using a certain Pokemon to illustrate the existence of the clitoris (I won't link it here, but if you're curious, look up images of Cloyster and consider its top-central horn), and praise all around as to how reminding men of this could save countless marriages. > Now I realize that humans are not very rational, but facts are facts and > if people want fewer sex problems in society there are clear answers which, > apparently no one wants to implement. > Not no one. Rather, a large segment of society does not want it implemented, as they are locked into the misunderstanding that educating their children about sex will make them more likely to engage in sex with consequences (psychological as well as STDs and pregnancy), when the opposite is true. It's the old "Things That People Were Not Meant To Know" meme complex. It's almost as if education about education would be a very useful thing to give new parents. And yet, people are afraid that if the government gets involved at all in parenting, it will quickly slide from just providing education to mandating requirements in the name of some social good (see: the problems that eugenics movements have demonstrated in practice, regardless of their theoretical aims - as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics puts it, "negative eugenics" such as limiting who can breed with who, and prohibiting politically unpopular people from having children at all). > side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full > operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were > psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not > need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work > well for them. > Personal anecdote - the few I know who went through the whole process seem quite happy with the result. I know, anecdotes are not data; this only shows that the success rate is non-zero. That said, in all such cases, there was much psychological counseling as part of the process, apparently in part to screen out those for whom gender reassignment would not solve their problems, despite their belief that it would. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 21:03:16 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:03:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 13, 2019, at 12:38 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > I see in the sports section where an ice skater is accused of sending a picture of his penis to an underage girl. > > We have gotten to where we think that this can scar the girl for life and the guy needs to go to prison. > > Is this a bit nuts? (p.i.). What if the girl had been raised in a home where the adults and children are nudists.? What would the girl say to the email photo? Maybe 'Yeah, that's one looks like all right. So what's the big deal? > > Making love is obscene. Photos of people having sex are so classified. Is this nuts? > > Well, this is what you get when you have a repressive society that is hung up on sex. Why are they hung up? because their parents were and so on back to the jungle where wearing animal skins was mandatory. Or to Eden if you like that story. > > Study after study shows that kids who get rational sex ed have fewer problems - lower pregnancy rates, lower sexual activity, greater use of pregnancy preventatives if sex occurs, lower sex disease rates, lower anxiety rates,and so on. Yet we refuse in many states to have sex ed at any level. Some in biology but no showing of genitals, esp. erect ones. Result - unbelievable sexual ignorance which I documented when I taught a college course in human sexual behavior. > > Now I realize that humans are not very rational, but facts are facts and if people want fewer sex problems in society there are clear answers which, apparently no one wants to implement. It?s not news to say that there are definitely social taboos around sex that seem more relics than sensible heuristics. Interesting thing I?ve heard about primates, which I?ve yet to follow up on: they tend to display genitalia as opposed to most (or all?) other mammalian orders. > side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work well for them. The operation created a new identity of sorts which placed them in a group that has a lot more bias against them than the group there were in before. So, additional problems. And some will change back and be unhappy with that. Do you have evidence to back this claim? I?m not being snarky here, but trying to understand how you came to that folks undergoing such surgery are ?rarely Happy with it.? Almost everything I?ve read on the subject leads me to believe that that?s not the case. > So what's next? Choosing your race? Your species? The thing is again trans people don?t usually experience this as a matter of choice ? in the same way that people don?t experience their sexual orientation as a matter of choice. Now you might distinguish between identification or feelings and display/performance and say the latter is chosen ? as in someone might identify or feel they are X, but not perform X in a social setting. An example is a gay who?s in the closet and might even go further to display as straight. But that?s almost entirely because of social stigma or other things like internalizing a social role. Race is also socially constructed and so is ethnicity to a large extent. It?s not entirely surprising that some people feel more comfortable or identity with a race that would differ from their other family members. (Sometimes the driver here is avoiding an inferior social position or persecution. But there are also cases of people simply more identifying with a race other than the one their family history or legal authorities would apply to them. Surely, not all of these folks are either suffering mental issues or simply being arbitrary.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 13 21:16:38 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:16:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: References: <002501d5b1cc$53b5dd50$fb2197f0$@rainier66.com> <008101d5b1ed$58e4e8e0$0aaebaa0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00c201d5b1fa$9c16fbf0$d444f3d0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 12:29 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] women On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:41 AM > wrote: Adrian, we haven?t heard from you in a long time and we missed the hell outta ya bud. Hope all is well with yas. You have been the missing ingredient in several discussions here. >?I've been reading the discussions here. and haven't much to say in most of them. >?As to me, I've been working on some deals, getting CubeCab through a certain registration that took almost two years, and finishing up some science fiction writing I promised myself I'd get done by end of year. (You might have heard of the Traveller role playing game. I've writing up a trio of sectors to add to the setting's map. Two have been published - see Datsatl & Thaku Fung at https://travellermap.com/?p=-102.467!212.853!4 &options=58359 - and I just yesterday turned in the third for review - the one between them, that ties the two together and has some plot of its own.) WOWsers we have another author in our ranks. Cool good for you. Glad to hear you are well. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 21:29:04 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:29:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <354923CC-0DB8-449F-A782-B807655BAB8B@gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: >> side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work well for them. > > Personal anecdote - the few I know who went through the whole process seem quite happy with the result. I know, anecdotes are not data; this only shows that the success rate is non-zero. I?ve seen studies that show low dissatisfaction rates with gender affirmation surgery (also known as SRS). And, like you, the folks I know who?ve gone through it seem happy with the result. This isn?t To say there are no folks who aren?t dissatisfied. But I think there?s a push by conservatives to push the view that almost everyone is dissatisfied with this surgery. In the same way, they push the narrative that most women who get abortions experience severe depression from that. (Studies seem to show the overwhelming majority of women do not.) > That said, in all such cases, there was much psychological counseling as part of the process, apparently in part to screen out those for whom gender reassignment would not solve their problems, despite their belief that it would. There?s also a view floating around that somehow someone ? usually someone preteen ? might feel they're the wrong gender on Monday and they?ll be prescribed meds by Tuesday and prepped for surgery by Wednesday and have the surgery before the weekend, and then, of course, regret this once they?ve had a good talking to by their pastor if not sooner. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 21:59:18 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:59:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] women In-Reply-To: <00c201d5b1fa$9c16fbf0$d444f3d0$@rainier66.com> References: <002501d5b1cc$53b5dd50$fb2197f0$@rainier66.com> <008101d5b1ed$58e4e8e0$0aaebaa0$@rainier66.com> <00c201d5b1fa$9c16fbf0$d444f3d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:16 PM wrote: > WOWsers we have another author in our ranks. Cool good for you. > Not my first work. Almost certainly won't be my last. In fact, I recall that my contribution to https://www.amazon.com/Jockey-Science-Fiction-Stories-Futura-ebook/dp/B00FEPGLB8/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=space+jockey+book&qid=1576274294&sr=8-3 was recruited through this very list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 22:14:44 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 14:14:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <354923CC-0DB8-449F-A782-B807655BAB8B@gmail.com> References: <354923CC-0DB8-449F-A782-B807655BAB8B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:30 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Dec 13, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full >> operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were >> psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not >> need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work >> well for them. >> > > Personal anecdote - the few I know who went through the whole process seem > quite happy with the result. I know, anecdotes are not data; this only > shows that the success rate is non-zero. > > > I?ve seen studies that show low dissatisfaction rates with gender > affirmation surgery (also known as SRS). And, like you, the folks I know > who?ve gone through it seem happy with the result. > > This isn?t To say there are no folks who aren?t dissatisfied. But I think > there?s a push by conservatives to push the view that almost everyone is > dissatisfied with this surgery. In the same way, they push the narrative > that most women who get abortions experience severe depression from that. > (Studies seem to show the overwhelming majority of women do not.) > "Damn the facts, my gut instincts must be right!" That attitude seems to be entirely too common these days. I suspect that's part of where the "OK boomer" meme came from: those who insist on lies will not acknowledge the truth where it opposes their preconceptions, and so can best be simply acknowledged then ignored. > That said, in all such cases, there was much psychological counseling as > part of the process, apparently in part to screen out those for whom gender > reassignment would not solve their problems, despite their belief that it > would. > > > There?s also a view floating around that somehow someone ? usually someone > preteen ? might feel they're the wrong gender on Monday and they?ll be > prescribed meds by Tuesday and prepped for surgery by Wednesday and have > the surgery before the weekend, and then, of course, regret this once > they?ve had a good talking to by their pastor if not sooner. > Ah, yes. "Rapid onset gender dysphoria", was it? Which was entirely concocted by interviewing people who had reason to be willfully ignorant of prior signals, such that the only "rapid onset" was some step that could not be ignored? I might be willing to support more counseling for these cases (both to ease transition, and to screen out any for whom SRS would not actually solve their problems) - but then, I think more mental health services in general would be a good idea, not just in this case. I'd even go so far as to say that ingrained denial reflexes are a widespread mental health issue that it would be useful to society to fix. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 23:35:06 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 15:35:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69514C51-FD60-4691-AF76-31109D60415C@gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 1:30 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Dec 13, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work well for them. >>> >>> Personal anecdote - the few I know who went through the whole process seem quite happy with the result. I know, anecdotes are not data; this only shows that the success rate is non-zero. >> >> I?ve seen studies that show low dissatisfaction rates with gender affirmation surgery (also known as SRS). And, like you, the folks I know who?ve gone through it seem happy with the result. >> >> This isn?t To say there are no folks who aren?t dissatisfied. But I think there?s a push by conservatives to push the view that almost everyone is dissatisfied with this surgery. In the same way, they push the narrative that most women who get abortions experience severe depression from that. (Studies seem to show the overwhelming majority of women do not.) > > "Damn the facts, my gut instincts must be right!" > > That attitude seems to be entirely too common these days. I?m not so sure Bill W suffers from that here, and I hope will provide some substantiation for his reckoning of trans folks being unhappy with their surgical outcomes. To give one example of a study supporting the opposite (to his) position, see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4261554/ > I suspect that's part of where the "OK boomer" meme came from: those who insist on lies will not acknowledge the truth where it opposes their preconceptions, and so can best be simply acknowledged then ignored. Well, I do see Boomers doing the usual hating on younger generations that seems to go back forever. I thought Boomers were supposed to be the generation that broke with traditions, but that?s kind of a stereotype too. (I?m guessing I?m surrounded by Boomers, so I mean no offense and I hope I don?t come across as agist.) >>> That said, in all such cases, there was much psychological counseling as part of the process, apparently in part to screen out those for whom gender reassignment would not solve their problems, despite their belief that it would. >> >> There?s also a view floating around that somehow someone ? usually someone preteen ? might feel they're the wrong gender on Monday and they?ll be prescribed meds by Tuesday and prepped for surgery by Wednesday and have the surgery before the weekend, and then, of course, regret this once they?ve had a good talking to by their pastor if not sooner. > > Ah, yes. "Rapid onset gender dysphoria", was it? Which was entirely concocted by interviewing people who had reason to be willfully ignorant of prior signals, such that the only "rapid onset" was some step that could not be ignored? It goes along with ?when I was young, no one did X.? Well, they didn?t do X openly because you?d get beat up and cast out of your family if you openly did X back then. Doesn?t mean X wasn?t happening. > I might be willing to support more counseling for these cases (both to ease transition, and to screen out any for whom SRS would not actually solve their problems) - but then, I think more mental health services in general would be a good idea, not just in this case. I'd even go so far as to say that ingrained denial reflexes are a widespread mental health issue that it would be useful to society to fix. Less stigma would be great all around. In the trans community, too, there?s a problem because trans is often seen as a mental health issue because that?s how trans folks get access to treatments and assistance. This isn?t to say trans people never have mental health issues or that there might be misdiagnosis, but there is a problem with categorizing trans itself as pathological. (And the analogy with homosexuality is obvious: once it was categorized as pathology. We know where that went with persecuting gays and lesbians via coerced therapeutic interventions.) Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 00:11:14 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:11:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <69514C51-FD60-4691-AF76-31109D60415C@gmail.com> References: <69514C51-FD60-4691-AF76-31109D60415C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:37 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Less stigma would be great all around. In the trans community, too, > there?s a problem because trans is often seen as a mental health issue > because that?s how trans folks get access to treatments and assistance. > This isn?t to say trans people never have mental health issues or that > there might be misdiagnosis, but there is a problem with categorizing trans > itself as pathological. (And the analogy with homosexuality is obvious: > once it was categorized as pathology. We know where that went with > persecuting gays and lesbians via coerced therapeutic interventions.) > Indeed. One might consider asking people who wish to institutionalize all transgender people, which of the following is more in need of psychiatric assistance - indeed, of confinement away from society? "My body is not as I perceive myself to be, so I wish to alter my body to match my identity." -or- "People are saying the world isn't as I say it is, so i wish to coerce them with force until they stop disagreeing with me. Any evidence against my point of view is obviously incorrect, simply because it disagrees with my point of view. No one has the right to question me about this." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 00:35:06 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:35:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3EB317D2-967C-42D6-9B10-A9008D87391C@gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2019, at 4:13 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? >> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 3:37 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: > >> Less stigma would be great all around. In the trans community, too, there?s a problem because trans is often seen as a mental health issue because that?s how trans folks get access to treatments and assistance. This isn?t to say trans people never have mental health issues or that there might be misdiagnosis, but there is a problem with categorizing trans itself as pathological. (And the analogy with homosexuality is obvious: once it was categorized as pathology. We know where that went with persecuting gays and lesbians via coerced therapeutic interventions.) > > Indeed. One might consider asking people who wish to institutionalize all transgender people, which of the following is more in need of psychiatric assistance - indeed, of confinement away from society? > > "My body is not as I perceive myself to be, so I wish to alter my body to match my identity." > > -or- > > "People are saying the world isn't as I say it is, so i wish to coerce them with force until they stop disagreeing with me. Any evidence against my point of view is obviously incorrect, simply because it disagrees with my point of view. No one has the right to question me about this." It?s interesting that the historical pattern is to first make this moral issue, then a medical one, and then finally to just acknowledge people are diverse. Extropians and transhumanists should have no problem with the last position, IMO. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 00:56:43 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 16:56:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <69514C51-FD60-4691-AF76-31109D60415C@gmail.com> References: <69514C51-FD60-4691-AF76-31109D60415C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009a01d5b219$5a785620$0f690260$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >?I?m not so sure Bill W suffers from that here, and I hope will provide some substantiation for his reckoning of trans folks being unhappy with their surgical outcomes? Sure but none of what I was talking about to start with required surgery of any kind. Any of the genders can be any other gender at will. Surgery is expensive and painful. >?Well, I do see Boomers doing the usual hating on younger generations that seems to go back forever? It isn?t really hating Dan. I recognize it might sound like it to young ears, but a continuous trend I have seen my entire long life is a steady march toward a kinder and gentler world. Younger people have known only that. Older people must seem a bit harsh at times. >?I thought Boomers were supposed to be the generation that broke with traditions? And created new ones, as rigid as the ones they broke, ja. The new rules which are replacing the boomer rules are every bit as rigid as their predecessors. Every generation must smash the idols of the previous. >? but that?s kind of a stereotype too? Eh, stereotype shmereotype, it?s how people look at the world. If you don?t do that to some extent you are overwhelmed with data. I figure treat everyone as an individual regardless of observable characteristics, understand that your general models are general and filled with exceptions, move on, no worries. >? (I?m guessing I?m surrounded by Boomers, so I mean no offense and I hope I don?t come across as agist.)? No worries, me lad. We are not as easily offended as the younger generations are being trained to be. (Hey I get to say that, because I am a front-row seat witness to how my own son is being educated in the public school system (8th grade (my observation is they are still struggling with the illusion that we can create a world in which no one is ever offended (methinks we cannot (I admire the effort and the spirit of the thing however.))))) For instance? Do let me pick an extremey but realistic example, one I saw just today. My son?s class went to the movies to see Jumanji (kids have so much fun these days.) I went over to get some lunch at the food court and this guy with approximately a billion earrings and tattoos and bone thru the nose and boat anchors thru the damn cheeks and oh mercy, came, sat a few tables over from me with his girl who had a few orders of magnitude fewer piercings but still a few orders of magnitude more than I was comfortable sitting near, so I moved off, and who woulda thunk, when that old time religion guy was growing up he would never get it if you tried to tell him the truth: a coupla thousand years from now when some geezer sees something deeply revolting he will invoke your name with an intentional Irish accent even if he isn?t a believer (aaah Jaysus?) So ja, I am guilty of stereotyping to some extent and won?t give it up (we geezers are that way, all of us) but think about this: what do you suppose it sounds like to those of us who remember fondly the croony swoony old time singers such as Lou Rawls https://youtu.be/0QTrCBAqTyM and compare that beauty to pretty much any rap created perhaps by the grandchildren of the young people seen bopping to Rawls in the video above. If the contrast isn?t stark enough, choose pretty much any modern rap and go to the lyrics: oh mercy. Hell yes that rap crap is offensive to me. We have a society falling all over itself to offend no one, but has a huge blind spot when rap. >?Less stigma would be great all around? Regards, Dan Sure. But why not stigmatize rap? It is richly deserving of the most shameful stigma I can imagine, yet we turn a blind eye. We stigmatizes disco music, ja? It was the same thing over and over and over, nothing, and it was inexplicably displacing rock n roll, oh dear. All of this went down a different (and quite random) road than I intended, so do let me try to steer it back. I am all for less stigma, more openness and accepting-ity, and all of it. I love the whole kinder and gentler school my son enjoys. He has seen exactly one major fight in 8 years of public education, and it wouldn?t be considered major by my standards: guys used to go at it to that extent regularly in the olden days. A fight like that happened about twenty times per school year in a typical elementary. Now it is practically an existential crisis. Well, ok, this is a good thing, but do let me assure you: if these lads are ever recruited to fight a war, evolution help us. We need to master battle bots quickly, otherwise we are helpless as kittens. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 01:30:02 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:30:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <009a01d5b219$5a785620$0f690260$@rainier66.com> References: <009a01d5b219$5a785620$0f690260$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <22DD111D-5DB4-4973-A46C-B0EF31B033B9@gmail.com> On Dec 13, 2019, at 4:56 PM, spike at rainier66.com wrote: > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat > > > >?I?m not so sure Bill W suffers from that here, and I hope will provide some substantiation for his reckoning of trans folks being unhappy with their surgical outcomes? > > Sure but none of what I was talking about to start with required surgery of any kind. Any of the genders can be any other gender at will. Surgery is expensive and painful. I was responding to Bill W?s statement from earlier today: ?side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full operation to another sex are rarely happy with it.? He?s definitely referring to surgery there. Also, in regards to gender, it doesn?t appear that people, especially trans people, select their genders at will. Hence how they often experience problems fitting in and getting desired changes. It seems you?re viewing as whimsical and making much ado about nothing. That doesn?t go along with my personal experience of trans individuals or with what studies I?ve seen. Let me ask you: Do you experience either your gender or your orientation as something you can change at will? I certainly don?t. I?m not saying one can?t perhaps alter these over time with lots of effort. My guess would be for the most, even with transgender and genderqueer people, they experience their gender as something interior to them and not under their direct control. (I?ll respond to the rest of your post later. Have to head out for dinner with a friend.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 02:44:04 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 18:44:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <22DD111D-5DB4-4973-A46C-B0EF31B033B9@gmail.com> References: <009a01d5b219$5a785620$0f690260$@rainier66.com> <22DD111D-5DB4-4973-A46C-B0EF31B033B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00dd01d5b228$59d0a6a0$0d71f3e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, December 13, 2019 5:30 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: Dan TheBookMan Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again On Dec 13, 2019, at 4:56 PM, spike at rainier66.com wrote: From: extropy-chat > On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >?I?m not so sure Bill W suffers from that here, and I hope will provide some substantiation for his reckoning of trans folks being unhappy with their surgical outcomes? Sure but none of what I was talking about to start with required surgery of any kind. Any of the genders can be any other gender at will. Surgery is expensive and painful. >?I was responding to Bill W?s statement from earlier today: >??side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full operation to another sex are rarely happy with it.? >?He?s definitely referring to surgery there? OK cool thanks for that clarification. I disqualify myself on even commenting on what you really meant: I know too little about it. I am amused at our society?s current trend, to try to accommodate everyone. But logical contradictions result. An example would be the notion that we should tolerate every religion. But some religions are specifically intolerant of some other religions. Are they to be tolerated? And some religions are intolerant of any religion except their own, and not even all of their own. We want to tolerate everyone?s gender notions, but the result is that we are getting male track stars vaguely pretending to be trans in order to pick up medals and records. But don?t worry, this will get worse very soon: the 2020 summer Olympics will be upon us. Regarding my own self-disqualification: my world didn?t have the kinds of questions modern society is facing. I went to engineering school, and you already know what kind of people engineering students are (we do self-stereotyping on ourselves (and it works pretty well actually.)) Then I went into military engineering, then into deep black stuff and they just don?t have people in that setting with boat anchors thru the damn nose. It just ain?t done. It ain?t fittin?! When I was going thru annual security reviews, I had to worry they would find out about? you guys. {8^D Kidding bygones, I reported myself for hanging out here. You hafta do that kind of thing: confess everything you have done. If they find out something you didn?t put on your form, it is way worse than whatever you did. So I always put everything on there. My security guy mighta been a bit scandalized, but I never committed any actual crimes on ExI, that I know of. The kinds of people I worked with, the kinds who were my friends, my lunch companions, all that, were people who agreed to all these conditions, told everything they ever did, then would get on a polygraph and prove it. Squarest office you ever saw. The current staff of the FBI would be unhappy there (too square.) Eh, that was my world. Isn?t now. I would do it all again. We had a transgender guy in our office. People accepted the notion: we don?t care what is a software type?s gender, only that the software is ready on schedule and works according to the spec. To answer your question: no, there is no possible way I could control my orientation. I don?t think I could ever change it, regardless of how much therapy or how many prayer meetins or what the heck I did. (That being said, it is unclear if a prayer meetin where people were prayin for me to be healed from my heterosexual tendencies would still be spelled meetin (or would it require the missing g to be returned (and what deity exactly are we prayin to here (that sorta thing.)))) spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 05:59:51 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 00:59:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2019, 15:38 William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full > operation to another sex are rarely happy with it. They were > psychologically messed up (new trendy term) before and after. They did not > need another sex. They needed therapy. Which they got but did not work > well for them. The operation created a new identity of sorts which placed > them in a group that has a lot more bias against them than the group there > were in before. So, additional problems. And some will change back and be > unhappy with that. > > So what's next? Choosing your race? Your species? > ^Least transhumanist thing that has been said on the list in a while (For real though, just because the tumblr trans groupthink is annoying doesn't mean being trans is bad. People can do whatever they want. Yes, it's more complicated than angry Internet people make it out to be. Yes, there is a snowflake culture. Yes, there are some people who regret surgery, because it is true that trans being 'in' in certain circles means that some make the wrong choice due to peer pressure or a desire to be accepted. None of this invalidates transgenderism, which is an ancient aspect of our culture.) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 10:34:46 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 05:34:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:16 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: doesn't mean being trans is bad. People can do whatever they want. > ### Let me riff off that a bit. Being transgender may be not bad, in the sense of not being as intrinsically wrong as is torturing dogs for fun. But from a social standpoint it is a form of behavioral disability, and thus not desirable. A point of view that values the survival and success of a society is necessarily strongly heteronormative because heterosexual couples as much better at creating stable, efficient and successful families, where success is measures in the number and quality of their offspring. Evolutionary fitness of trannies is severely impaired, especially in the modern world that offers gonad-removal services. In this context the biological traits that differentiate actual trans-sexuals from normal people are properly seen as derangements rather than neutral or beneficial traits. The same pertains to the memes and ideologies that create would-be trans-sexuals out of mildly disturbed individuals We libertarians live and let live. We would not censure a tranny for being a tranny but we don't approve of them either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 12:06:34 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:06:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computer Factoring Message-ID: Just a few years ago the best a Quantum Computer could do is figure out that the factors of 15 were 3 and 5 but things have improved, very recently a Quantum Computer figured out that the factors of 1,099,551,473,989 are 1,048,589 and 1,048,601. Quantum computer sets new record for finding prime number factors John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 14:47:19 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:47:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computer Factoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I understand how to program a computer to factor number. But how is this done with a quantum computer? Is it all quantum hardware/configure? Or is some part of that software? And what would it mean to load a program into a quantum computer or what is it all about? Brent On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 5:09 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Just a few years ago the best a Quantum Computer could do is figure out > that the factors of 15 were 3 and 5 but things have improved, very recently > a Quantum Computer figured out that the factors of 1,099,551,473,989 are > 1,048,589 and 1,048,601. > > Quantum computer sets new record for finding prime number factors > > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 15:23:17 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 09:23:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> I don?t know why we need to bring slurs into this, but, from an evolutionary perspective, being trans (and getting surgery for it, rendering oneself unable to reproduce) would cause it to be self-limiting and therefore not something to worry about in the long term. It?s simply a fact of life. I, myself, find myself somewhere ?stuck in the middle?. Not trans enough for surgery to do any good, not cis enough to be comfortable. What is there to do for it? SR Ballard > On Dec 14, 2019, at 4:34 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:16 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> doesn't mean being trans is bad. People can do whatever they want. > > ### Let me riff off that a bit. > > Being transgender may be not bad, in the sense of not being as intrinsically wrong as is torturing dogs for fun. But from a social standpoint it is a form of behavioral disability, and thus not desirable. A point of view that values the survival and success of a society is necessarily strongly heteronormative because heterosexual couples as much better at creating stable, efficient and successful families, where success is measures in the number and quality of their offspring. Evolutionary fitness of trannies is severely impaired, especially in the modern world that offers gonad-removal services. In this context the biological traits that differentiate actual trans-sexuals from normal people are properly seen as derangements rather than neutral or beneficial traits. The same pertains to the memes and ideologies that create would-be trans-sexuals out of mildly disturbed individuals > > We libertarians live and let live. We would not censure a tranny for being a tranny but we don't approve of them either. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Sat Dec 14 15:40:51 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:40:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of SR Ballard via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again >?I, myself, find myself somewhere ?stuck in the middle?. Not trans enough for surgery to do any good, not cis enough to be comfortable. What is there to do for it? SR Ballard Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you want to be. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 16:29:59 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:29:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computer Factoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I understand how to program a computer to factor number.* > *But how is this done with a quantum computer?* > *Is it all quantum hardware/configure? Or is some part of that software?* > *And what would it mean to load a program into a quantum computer or what > is it all about?* > *Brent* > Every factoring algorithm ever discover that can be run on a conventional computer runs in exponential time, that is to say the time it takes to factor a number is proportional to 2^N where N is the number of digits in the number you want to factor, so even a small increase in N could lead to a huge increase in time. In 1994 Peter Shor found a algorithm that only increased in polynomial time, that is to say the time it takes to factor a number is proportional to N^2, a far slower rate. The only problem was that Shor's Algorithm could only be run on a Quantum Computer but that problem is less serious now than it was in 1994 and is becoming even less serious every day. Here is a explanation of how Shore's Algorithm works: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 16:52:49 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:52:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you want to be. > Surely you jest? At those prices? BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 17:02:31 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:02:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Asheville North Carolina is full of 'different' people and far cheaper. bill w On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:55 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it > comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you > want to be. > > > > Surely you jest? At those prices? > < > https://www.newser.com/story/283270/to-afford-the-bay-area-he-lived-in-32-square-feet.html > > > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 17:14:01 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 09:14:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <017901d5b2a1$e18a8c90$a49fa5b0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you want to be. > Surely you jest? At those prices? BillK _______________________________________________ BillK, I will certainly admit life in the fast lane has is compromises. It was a big step down in standard of living for my bride and me when we came to the Bay in 1989. Our living arrangements went from this: https://dianaoverbey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/highclerecastle.jpg to this: https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 3-1.jpg?w=467 but hey, at least we were given a 20% raise in salary to come here. And they have great sushi, ommmm nom nom nom... spike From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 17:37:12 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 09:37:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again Message-ID: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:14 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: 'BillK' Subject: RE: [ExI] sex again -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you want to be. > Surely you jest? At those prices? BillK _______________________________________________ >...BillK, I will certainly admit life in the fast lane has is compromises. It was a big step down in standard of living for my bride and me when we came to the Bay in 1989. Our living arrangements went from this: https://dianaoverbey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/highclerecastle.jpg to this: https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 3-1.jpg?w=467 ... The second link didn't come thru before. Trying again: https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 3-1.jpg?w=467 I have been toying with an idea I wanted to bounce offa you. Things are very different now than when I started engineering. At Lockheeed often a ranking engineer would have his desk, a drawing board, a flat file (ja I know you went to google because you never saw one of those), a typewriter desk, filing cabinets, a safe (for classified documents) a cabinet for drafting tools, perhaps several other pieces of equipment modern engineers couldn't even name and had never seen. In my last assignment at that company, I inherited the office of Jerry Wozniak, who retired a multimillionaire for reasons having little to do with this job there but you likely already know by his name. We got rid of most of the outdated equipment in there and moved more guys in. There were four engineers in that office and we still had pleeeeennnty of room. We even kept Jerry's outdated filing cabinet just because it had his name on it. Hell of a nice guy he was. Never a bit crowded in that office with the four engineers desks and some of Jerry's old stuff. Reason: that list of stuff from Jerry Wozniak's era was all made obsolete by Jerry's son's invention. OK then, let's think it over and see if our housing needs were reduced by technology. I would argue that they are. Before I present my notions, I will offer a chance for you to think it over and post ideas. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 18:11:40 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 12:11:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Needs? Whose needs? Just answer this question: What are the things that a house (we are ignoring the outside, the yard, right?) has to have for a women to move into it. We can omit those things that our forefathers (foremothers?) would have said, like running water and electricity and a no-dirt floor. bill w On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: spike at rainier66.com > Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:14 AM > To: 'ExI chat list' > Cc: 'BillK' > Subject: RE: [ExI] sex again > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > BillK via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it > comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you > want to be. > > > > Surely you jest? At those prices? > < > https://www.newser.com/story/283270/to-afford-the-bay-area-he-lived-in-32-s > quare-feet.html > > > > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > > > > > >...BillK, I will certainly admit life in the fast lane has is compromises. > It was a big step down in standard of living for my bride and me when we > came to the Bay in 1989. Our living arrangements went from this: > > https://dianaoverbey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/highclerecastle.jpg > > to this: > > > https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 > 3-1.jpg?w=467 > > > ... > > The second link didn't come thru before. Trying again: > > > https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 > 3-1.jpg?w=467 > > > > I have been toying with an idea I wanted to bounce offa you. > > Things are very different now than when I started engineering. At > Lockheeed > often a ranking engineer would have his desk, a drawing board, a flat file > (ja I know you went to google because you never saw one of those), a > typewriter desk, filing cabinets, a safe (for classified documents) a > cabinet for drafting tools, perhaps several other pieces of equipment > modern > engineers couldn't even name and had never seen. > > In my last assignment at that company, I inherited the office of Jerry > Wozniak, who retired a multimillionaire for reasons having little to do > with > this job there but you likely already know by his name. We got rid of most > of the outdated equipment in there and moved more guys in. There were four > engineers in that office and we still had pleeeeennnty of room. We even > kept Jerry's outdated filing cabinet just because it had his name on it. > Hell of a nice guy he was. Never a bit crowded in that office with the > four > engineers desks and some of Jerry's old stuff. > > Reason: that list of stuff from Jerry Wozniak's era was all made obsolete > by > Jerry's son's invention. > > OK then, let's think it over and see if our housing needs were reduced by > technology. I would argue that they are. > > Before I present my notions, I will offer a chance for you to think it over > and post ideas. > > 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 Sat Dec 14 18:41:33 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 10:41:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Depends on the woman. I am immediately reminded of Judy's apartment from Zootopia - a fairly minimalist set of furnishings, to support a single person. (Modulo what all the "people" in Zootopia are, but the concept mirrors over to real life well enough.) Notably, the furnishings would not have differed to support a male individual. See https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/50/72/0f5072667904efa1e778cdc2e0b722bf.jpg for one design, though I think the actual apartment in the movie was even more austere. On this floorplan I see a bed, a desk, a TV for entertainment, food prep & storage, clothing storage, and presumably the inner door leads to a basic washroom with at least a toilet and sink, likely a small shower too. (Though this also has running water, electricity, and a no-dirt floor.) Occasional services such as laundry are presumably provided elsewhere in or near the apartment building on a community basis (such as a laundromat). Certainly the food prep and storage area, at least, is dramatically smaller than would have been needed back in the 1700s. Back then, such needs did not scale down to a single person very well, and a typical single person accommodation would have been an entire cabin. Of course, back then high-rise apartment buildings did not exist either. On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:14 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Needs? Whose needs? Just answer this question: > > What are the things that a house (we are ignoring the outside, the yard, > right?) has to have for a women to move into it. We can omit those things > that our forefathers (foremothers?) would have said, like running water and > electricity and a no-dirt floor. bill w > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: spike at rainier66.com >> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:14 AM >> To: 'ExI chat list' >> Cc: 'BillK' >> Subject: RE: [ExI] sex again >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of >> BillK via extropy-chat >> Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again >> >> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > >> > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it >> comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you >> want to be. >> > >> >> Surely you jest? At those prices? >> < >> https://www.newser.com/story/283270/to-afford-the-bay-area-he-lived-in-32-s >> quare-feet.html >> >> > >> >> >> BillK >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> >> >> >...BillK, I will certainly admit life in the fast lane has is >> compromises. >> It was a big step down in standard of living for my bride and me when we >> came to the Bay in 1989. Our living arrangements went from this: >> >> https://dianaoverbey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/highclerecastle.jpg >> >> to this: >> >> >> https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 >> 3-1.jpg?w=467 >> >> >> ... >> >> The second link didn't come thru before. Trying again: >> >> >> https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 >> 3-1.jpg?w=467 >> >> >> >> I have been toying with an idea I wanted to bounce offa you. >> >> Things are very different now than when I started engineering. At >> Lockheeed >> often a ranking engineer would have his desk, a drawing board, a flat file >> (ja I know you went to google because you never saw one of those), a >> typewriter desk, filing cabinets, a safe (for classified documents) a >> cabinet for drafting tools, perhaps several other pieces of equipment >> modern >> engineers couldn't even name and had never seen. >> >> In my last assignment at that company, I inherited the office of Jerry >> Wozniak, who retired a multimillionaire for reasons having little to do >> with >> this job there but you likely already know by his name. We got rid of >> most >> of the outdated equipment in there and moved more guys in. There were >> four >> engineers in that office and we still had pleeeeennnty of room. We even >> kept Jerry's outdated filing cabinet just because it had his name on it. >> Hell of a nice guy he was. Never a bit crowded in that office with the >> four >> engineers desks and some of Jerry's old stuff. >> >> Reason: that list of stuff from Jerry Wozniak's era was all made obsolete >> by >> Jerry's son's invention. >> >> OK then, let's think it over and see if our housing needs were reduced by >> technology. I would argue that they are. >> >> Before I present my notions, I will offer a chance for you to think it >> over >> and post ideas. >> >> 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 atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 18:45:24 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 10:45:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 7:25 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I, myself, find myself somewhere ?stuck in the middle?. Not trans enough > for surgery to do any good, not cis enough to be comfortable. What is there > to do for it? > Be what you are. If neither a female nor a male body plan would suit you, then use what you've got (it's cheaper than and as effective as switching, plus you're already familiar with it) and try not to worry about gender-specific elements (save for any medical issues specific to whatever you've got). Agender, asexual, and aromantic people exist. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 18:54:55 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:54:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <017901d5b2a1$e18a8c90$a49fa5b0$@rainier66.com> References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> <017901d5b2a1$e18a8c90$a49fa5b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: @Rafal: Fecundity is not a good measure of contribution to society. The least successful, biggest idiots reproduce the most. Smart, wealthy, successful people have fewer children. Kin selection is a thing. Also, memes are a lot more important than genes nowadays imo. The trans meme is an old one and clearly fecund as memes go. By your logic, it has staying power and thus it should stay. I think it just makes you a bit uncomfortable, which is ok, it sometimes makes me that way too, but it doesn't affect me in any way and I don't think it will have a negative impact on society. At least you should care more about obesity and lack of education far before you care about transgenderism. That fact does show your bias. Actually I think you are one of the smartest posters on here but it's funny your right wing stuff is kinda a meme (the newer definition of meme.) I don't blame you because I think it's somehow related to growing up in the death rattle of the USSR (from what I understand.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 19:07:02 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:07:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> <017901d5b2a1$e18a8c90$a49fa5b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <019d01d5b2b1$ab954660$02bfd320$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >?Actually I think you are one of the smartest posters on here but it's funny your right wing stuff is kinda a meme (the newer definition of meme.) The comment assumes some correlation between intelligence and position on the political spectrum. Those two axes are orthogonal. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 19:16:15 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:16:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Adrian, I cannot tell from your answers just what tech has reduced, to use Spike's word, as a household need. Certainly a hot water heater and a shower have eliminated having a big washtub and a wood fire to heat the water, but you need a lot more plumbing, and money. A dryer has reduced the need to hang clothes on racks in front of the fireplace at a greater cost (I assume we are ignoring increased costs). A dishwasher has reduced labor. Electric kitchen gadgets have reduced labor. Entertainments systems have reduced the need to get in the buggy and drive to town. Air conditioners have reduced the labor of fanning yourself by hand. Modern insulation has reduced the need to save newspaper to stuff in cracks. I'd better quit. Note that all of the modern stuff is now regarded as needs, not wants. What women would move in without all of the above - and more? bill w On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:44 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Depends on the woman. I am immediately reminded of Judy's apartment from > Zootopia - a fairly minimalist set of furnishings, to support a single > person. (Modulo what all the "people" in Zootopia are, but the concept > mirrors over to real life well enough.) Notably, the furnishings would not > have differed to support a male individual. > > See > https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/50/72/0f5072667904efa1e778cdc2e0b722bf.jpg for > one design, though I think the actual apartment in the movie was even more > austere. On this floorplan I see a bed, a desk, a TV for entertainment, > food prep & storage, clothing storage, and presumably the inner door leads > to a basic washroom with at least a toilet and sink, likely a small shower > too. (Though this also has running water, electricity, and a no-dirt > floor.) Occasional services such as laundry are presumably provided > elsewhere in or near the apartment building on a community basis (such as a > laundromat). > > Certainly the food prep and storage area, at least, is dramatically > smaller than would have been needed back in the 1700s. Back then, such > needs did not scale down to a single person very well, and a typical single > person accommodation would have been an entire cabin. Of course, back then > high-rise apartment buildings did not exist either. > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:14 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Needs? Whose needs? Just answer this question: >> >> What are the things that a house (we are ignoring the outside, the yard, >> right?) has to have for a women to move into it. We can omit those things >> that our forefathers (foremothers?) would have said, like running water and >> electricity and a no-dirt floor. bill w >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: spike at rainier66.com >>> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:14 AM >>> To: 'ExI chat list' >>> Cc: 'BillK' >>> Subject: RE: [ExI] sex again >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of >>> BillK via extropy-chat >>> Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again >>> >>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it >>> comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever you >>> want to be. >>> > >>> >>> Surely you jest? At those prices? >>> < >>> https://www.newser.com/story/283270/to-afford-the-bay-area-he-lived-in-32-s >>> quare-feet.html >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> BillK >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >...BillK, I will certainly admit life in the fast lane has is >>> compromises. >>> It was a big step down in standard of living for my bride and me when we >>> came to the Bay in 1989. Our living arrangements went from this: >>> >>> https://dianaoverbey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/highclerecastle.jpg >>> >>> to this: >>> >>> >>> https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 >>> 3-1.jpg?w=467 >>> >>> >>> ... >>> >>> The second link didn't come thru before. Trying again: >>> >>> >>> https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 >>> 3-1.jpg?w=467 >>> >>> >>> >>> I have been toying with an idea I wanted to bounce offa you. >>> >>> Things are very different now than when I started engineering. At >>> Lockheeed >>> often a ranking engineer would have his desk, a drawing board, a flat >>> file >>> (ja I know you went to google because you never saw one of those), a >>> typewriter desk, filing cabinets, a safe (for classified documents) a >>> cabinet for drafting tools, perhaps several other pieces of equipment >>> modern >>> engineers couldn't even name and had never seen. >>> >>> In my last assignment at that company, I inherited the office of Jerry >>> Wozniak, who retired a multimillionaire for reasons having little to do >>> with >>> this job there but you likely already know by his name. We got rid of >>> most >>> of the outdated equipment in there and moved more guys in. There were >>> four >>> engineers in that office and we still had pleeeeennnty of room. We even >>> kept Jerry's outdated filing cabinet just because it had his name on it. >>> Hell of a nice guy he was. Never a bit crowded in that office with the >>> four >>> engineers desks and some of Jerry's old stuff. >>> >>> Reason: that list of stuff from Jerry Wozniak's era was all made >>> obsolete by >>> Jerry's son's invention. >>> >>> OK then, let's think it over and see if our housing needs were reduced by >>> technology. I would argue that they are. >>> >>> Before I present my notions, I will offer a chance for you to think it >>> over >>> and post ideas. >>> >>> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 19:30:28 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 11:30:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01bb01d5b2b4$f1a138f0$d4e3aad0$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 7:25 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat > wrote: I, myself, find myself somewhere ?stuck in the middle?. Not trans enough for surgery to do any good, not cis enough to be comfortable. What is there to do for it? >?Be what you are. If neither a female nor a male body plan would suit you, then use what you've got (it's cheaper than and as effective as switching, plus you're already familiar with it) and try not to worry about gender-specific elements (save for any medical issues specific to whatever you've got). Agender, asexual, and aromantic people exist? We have made good progress just having a name for it. Consider the scenario: Leisure Suit Larry is schmoozing someone at the office and can?t seem to get that he doesn?t do it for her. She says: Save it Leisure. I am asexual. He: You are a sexual what? She: Asexual, one word. Google on it, come back and talk after you educate yourself. She could even do this with a pleasant demeanor and nice smile, to maintain cordial relations at the office. If Leisure starts schmoozing her again, she tells him he apparently went to a faulty source, try again. Having a name for something helps a hundred ways. Back in the old days before Aspergers, the socially awkward were mixed with those of us who like computers and math. Now those two things can be differentiated because of the name. Nerd and geek became titles to be earned. We can get those and we automatically get the socially awkward component free. It?s great. I love modern times. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 20:02:17 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:02:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <01bb01d5b2b4$f1a138f0$d4e3aad0$@rainier66.com> References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <01bb01d5b2b4$f1a138f0$d4e3aad0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: There are no asexual people. Period. Have I experimented with over 7 billion people? Well, no, but.... It depends like anything else on how you define it. I had a young man in my college class who revealed to me that he and his new wife had sex once a month and presumably wanted to know my opinion of that. I assured him that it was OK. People have different sex drives, though I would certainly like to have heard from his wife on the subject. That's one way to define it - very low sex drive, which might be a matter of hormones or even technique. A woman virgin gets married, has a two minute man as a husband, never even gets aroused (foreplay? what's that? Jewish joke - 30 minutes of begging, told to me by a Jew). and decides that she is asexual. A full 25% of married women has NEVER had an orgasm. Men - go hide your heads, or conversely, get them out of the sand. Asexual or lousy mate? Reduced sensation - it could be that an orgasm is not fireworks for everyone. "Is that all there is? Is that all there is my friends, so keep on dancing, break out the booze" - thanks Peggy Lee." But zero sex drive? No ability to get erections and arousal? No orgasms by any means (some take a vibrator and lots of time)? Nah. Don't believe it. bill w On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:32 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] sex again > > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 7:25 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I, myself, find myself somewhere ?stuck in the middle?. Not trans enough > for surgery to do any good, not cis enough to be comfortable. What is there > to do for it? > > > > >?Be what you are. If neither a female nor a male body plan would suit > you, then use what you've got (it's cheaper than and as effective as > switching, plus you're already familiar with it) and try not to worry about > gender-specific elements (save for any medical issues specific to whatever > you've got). Agender, asexual, and aromantic people exist? > > > > > > We have made good progress just having a name for it. Consider the > scenario: Leisure Suit Larry is schmoozing someone at the office and can?t > seem to get that he doesn?t do it for her. > > > > She says: Save it Leisure. I am asexual. > > He: You are a sexual what? > > She: Asexual, one word. Google on it, come back and talk after you > educate yourself. > > > > She could even do this with a pleasant demeanor and nice smile, to > maintain cordial relations at the office. If Leisure starts schmoozing her > again, she tells him he apparently went to a faulty source, try again. > > > > Having a name for something helps a hundred ways. Back in the old days > before Aspergers, the socially awkward were mixed with those of us who like > computers and math. Now those two things can be differentiated because of > the name. Nerd and geek became titles to be earned. We can get those and > we automatically get the socially awkward component free. It?s great. I > love modern times. > > > > 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 Sat Dec 14 20:08:39 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 12:08:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: To take the example of that apartment, no dishwasher - just the sink - and a single professional female adult moved in quite readily, not stretching disbelief in the slightest. Likewise, very few electric kitchen gadgets: we see her using a microwave oven, and that's it. She does not demonstrate advanced cooking skills; if she wants a cake, she would buy one, not make it. I think it might help to focus on "person", not "woman". That is, the needs of a single working individual regardless of gender. This, too, is one of the changes since the times of old: many women are living on their own and focused on careers; the needs and wants of such women are not substantially different from those of men in the same position. On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:18 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Adrian, I cannot tell from your answers just what tech has reduced, to use > Spike's word, as a household need. > > Certainly a hot water heater and a shower have eliminated having a big > washtub and a wood fire to heat the water, but you need a lot more > plumbing, and money. A dryer has reduced the need to hang clothes on racks > in front of the fireplace at a greater cost (I assume we are ignoring > increased costs). A dishwasher has reduced labor. Electric kitchen > gadgets have reduced labor. Entertainments systems have reduced the need > to get in the buggy and drive to town. Air conditioners have reduced the > labor of fanning yourself by hand. Modern insulation has reduced the need > to save newspaper to stuff in cracks. I'd better quit. Note that all of > the modern stuff is now regarded as needs, not wants. What women would > move in without all of the above - and more? > bill w > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:44 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Depends on the woman. I am immediately reminded of Judy's apartment from >> Zootopia - a fairly minimalist set of furnishings, to support a single >> person. (Modulo what all the "people" in Zootopia are, but the concept >> mirrors over to real life well enough.) Notably, the furnishings would not >> have differed to support a male individual. >> >> See >> https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0f/50/72/0f5072667904efa1e778cdc2e0b722bf.jpg for >> one design, though I think the actual apartment in the movie was even more >> austere. On this floorplan I see a bed, a desk, a TV for entertainment, >> food prep & storage, clothing storage, and presumably the inner door leads >> to a basic washroom with at least a toilet and sink, likely a small shower >> too. (Though this also has running water, electricity, and a no-dirt >> floor.) Occasional services such as laundry are presumably provided >> elsewhere in or near the apartment building on a community basis (such as a >> laundromat). >> >> Certainly the food prep and storage area, at least, is dramatically >> smaller than would have been needed back in the 1700s. Back then, such >> needs did not scale down to a single person very well, and a typical single >> person accommodation would have been an entire cabin. Of course, back then >> high-rise apartment buildings did not exist either. >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:14 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Needs? Whose needs? Just answer this question: >>> >>> What are the things that a house (we are ignoring the outside, the yard, >>> right?) has to have for a women to move into it. We can omit those things >>> that our forefathers (foremothers?) would have said, like running water and >>> electricity and a no-dirt floor. bill w >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: spike at rainier66.com >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 9:14 AM >>>> To: 'ExI chat list' >>>> Cc: 'BillK' >>>> Subject: RE: [ExI] sex again >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: extropy-chat On Behalf >>>> Of >>>> BillK via extropy-chat >>>> Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again >>>> >>>> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 15:43, spike jones via extropy-chat >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Move to the Bay Area? This place is already the Star Wars Bar when it >>>> comes to diversity. Others will already be comfortable with whatever >>>> you >>>> want to be. >>>> > >>>> >>>> Surely you jest? At those prices? >>>> < >>>> https://www.newser.com/story/283270/to-afford-the-bay-area-he-lived-in-32-s >>>> quare-feet.html >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> BillK >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >...BillK, I will certainly admit life in the fast lane has is >>>> compromises. >>>> It was a big step down in standard of living for my bride and me when we >>>> came to the Bay in 1989. Our living arrangements went from this: >>>> >>>> https://dianaoverbey.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/highclerecastle.jpg >>>> >>>> to this: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 >>>> 3-1.jpg?w=467 >>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> The second link didn't come thru before. Trying again: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/0415-sjm-l-birdave-041 >>>> 3-1.jpg?w=467 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have been toying with an idea I wanted to bounce offa you. >>>> >>>> Things are very different now than when I started engineering. At >>>> Lockheeed >>>> often a ranking engineer would have his desk, a drawing board, a flat >>>> file >>>> (ja I know you went to google because you never saw one of those), a >>>> typewriter desk, filing cabinets, a safe (for classified documents) a >>>> cabinet for drafting tools, perhaps several other pieces of equipment >>>> modern >>>> engineers couldn't even name and had never seen. >>>> >>>> In my last assignment at that company, I inherited the office of Jerry >>>> Wozniak, who retired a multimillionaire for reasons having little to do >>>> with >>>> this job there but you likely already know by his name. We got rid of >>>> most >>>> of the outdated equipment in there and moved more guys in. There were >>>> four >>>> engineers in that office and we still had pleeeeennnty of room. We even >>>> kept Jerry's outdated filing cabinet just because it had his name on it. >>>> Hell of a nice guy he was. Never a bit crowded in that office with the >>>> four >>>> engineers desks and some of Jerry's old stuff. >>>> >>>> Reason: that list of stuff from Jerry Wozniak's era was all made >>>> obsolete by >>>> Jerry's son's invention. >>>> >>>> OK then, let's think it over and see if our housing needs were reduced >>>> by >>>> technology. I would argue that they are. >>>> >>>> Before I present my notions, I will offer a chance for you to think it >>>> over >>>> and post ideas. >>>> >>>> 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 spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 20:50:38 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 12:50:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <01e501d5b2c0$24a9f240$6dfdd6c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again >?To take the example of that apartment, no dishwasher - just the sink - and a single professional female adult moved in quite readily, not stretching disbelief in the slightest. Likewise, very few electric kitchen gadgets: we see her using a microwave oven, and that's it. She does not demonstrate advanced cooking skills; if she wants a cake, she would buy one, not make it? Exactly what I was thinking: so much can be outsourced, including food, nearly all food. A small refrigerator, a toaster for the pop-tarts, microwave for nearly everything else. That doesn?t take much space. Lawn maintenance can all be outsourced, and should be. Laundry can be outsourced or certainly minimized. Car maintenance, out. Remember all the tools and stuff we used to need to keep our cars running, never mind the real junkyard dogs many of us drove in our misspent youth: even new cars needed attention and tweaking. Now they don?t. Do you need a TV? I don?t: the computer gets you exactly what you want and need with actual control. Do you need a stereo system? Those little Bluetooth speakers are remarkably competent and compact. Do you need a printer? Why? Filing cabinet? Why? Scan your documents on your flatbed and keep them forever where you can find them. Do you need a bookshelf? Indeed? Out. Do you need to entertain and have big parties at your house? Can?t you do your social life online like regular people do now, and we socially awkward types have already done for as long as it became practical. Then once in a while if you really need to have a party, you can do it at some public venue, such as Berkeley or preferably somewhere less scary than that. Garages: lotta space under a roof, ja? On the west side of the Bay, area under a roof is worth four digits per square foot. Park it in the street, make an apartment out of all that half a million bucks worth of climate-controlled floor. Keep in mind: plenty of moderns get some really exciting jobs. Especially the singles spend more time at the office than at home, which explains why offices keep getting nicer and nicer, but homes don?t. We have developed plenty of technologies which can keep us comfortable in a lot less floor area than we used to need. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 21:10:06 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 15:10:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: <01e501d5b2c0$24a9f240$6dfdd6c0$@rainier66.com> References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> <01e501d5b2c0$24a9f240$6dfdd6c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 2:53 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again > > > > >?To take the example of that apartment, no dishwasher - just the sink - > and a single professional female adult moved in quite readily, not > stretching disbelief in the slightest. Likewise, very few electric kitchen > gadgets: we see her using a microwave oven, and that's it. She does not > demonstrate advanced cooking skills; if she wants a cake, she would buy > one, not make it? > > > > I don't know if this is in keeping with the original question. > Outsourcing was done since Tarzan hired Cheetah to go get bananas. > Outsourcing does not reflect the results of technology. > > Exactly what I was thinking: so much can be outsourced, including food, > nearly all food. A small refrigerator, a toaster for the pop-tarts, > microwave for nearly everything else. That doesn?t take much space. > > This would be OK for me if I were 95 and had lost every single one of my > taste buds and all of my nose receptors. > > Lawn maintenance can all be outsourced, and should be. > > > > Laundry can be outsourced or certainly minimized. > > > > Car maintenance, out. Remember all the tools and stuff we used to need to > keep our cars running, never mind the real junkyard dogs many of us drove > in our misspent youth: even new cars needed attention and tweaking. Now > they don?t. > > > > Do you need a TV? I don?t: the computer gets you exactly what you want > and need with actual control. > > The computer doesn't really compete with a big TV. > > Do you need a stereo system? Those little Bluetooth speakers are > remarkably competent and compact. > > Yeah if you don't care about getting any bass. Highly irregular > response dropping off below 200 cps from little speakers (Bose is the best > of the small, I found) No one fond of high fidelity would accept that. > You might as well use earbuds. > > Do you need a printer? Why? Filing cabinet? Why? Scan your documents > on your flatbed and keep them forever where you can find them. > > > > Do you need a bookshelf? Indeed? Out. > > I will admit that if you just don't like books tech provides Kindle > etc. Only my bathroom doesn't have book shelves despite my giving away > hundreds of books in the last couple of years. And Kindle, aside from the > search function, has far few features than a book. > > Do you need to entertain and have big parties at your house? Can?t you do > your social life online like regular people do now, and we socially awkward > types have already done for as long as it became practical. Then once in a > while if you really need to have a party, you can do it at some public > venue, such as Berkeley or preferably somewhere less scary than that. > > Again - no reflection of the effect of tech here. > > Garages: lotta space under a roof, ja? On the west side of the Bay, area > under a roof is worth four digits per square foot. Park it in the street, > make an apartment out of all that half a million bucks worth of > climate-controlled floor. > > ditto > > Keep in mind: plenty of moderns get some really exciting jobs. Especially > the singles spend more time at the office than at home, which explains why > offices keep getting nicer and nicer, but homes don?t. > > > > We have developed plenty of technologies which can keep us comfortable in > a lot less floor area than we used to need. > > Yeah, if you like being cooped up like a resident of Tokyo. I do not > regard reducing space as any kind of improvement whatever. Maybe for the > plebes. I shudder at having to live like that. It reminds me of having to > go to a nursing home. I may not do that even if I have to. bill w > > 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 Sat Dec 14 21:10:46 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:10:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <01bb01d5b2b4$f1a138f0$d4e3aad0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:04 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > There are no asexual people. Period. > There are enough people who demonstrate zero sex drive to be used as primary evidence that asexual people exit. > A full 25% of married women has NEVER had an orgasm. Men - go hide your > heads, or conversely, get them out of the sand. Asexual or lousy mate? > Lousy mate. Infamously, many men do not know that they should engage a woman's clitoris during sex, and otherwise do not do the things that would cause orgasm. It is entirely possible for a standard penis-to-vagina interaction to avoid stimulating the woman's pleasure spots, especially if done inexpertly. > But zero sex drive? No ability to get erections and arousal? No orgasms > by any means (some take a vibrator and lots of time)? Nah. Don't believe > it. > 1) Some people can not achieve orgasm due to medical conditions, though that is not what "asexual" typically refers to. 2) Zero sex drive != no ability to orgasm. It is possible (immoral and criminal, but physically possible) to rape an asexual individual and drive them (male or female) to orgasm. Said individual merely has no desire to engage in the activities leading to orgasm of their own free will. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 21:16:32 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:16:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: <01e501d5b2c0$24a9f240$6dfdd6c0$@rainier66.com> References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> <01e501d5b2c0$24a9f240$6dfdd6c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:50 PM wrote: > Keep in mind: plenty of moderns get some really exciting jobs. Especially > the singles spend more time at the office than at home, which explains why > offices keep getting nicer and nicer, but homes don?t. > Indeed. I suspect that is one of the reasons the particular example I've been using in this thread leapt out: she certainly has an exciting job (usually), but there are a few scenes contrasting her home life - both the life she had before moving to the city, and once there, her lonely times in her apartment - to what she experiences on duty - both in the office and on the street - as a police officer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 21:18:58 2019 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:18:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:05 AM Will Steinberg wrote: snip > @Rafal: > > Fecundity is not a good measure of contribution to society. > > The least successful, biggest idiots reproduce the most. Smart, wealthy, > successful people have fewer children. That was not how we got here. According to Gregory Clark, from at least 1250 to 1800, the well off were about twice as successful as the poor in reproducing. The selection of human psychological traits was as intense as that applied to the tame Russian foxes. If you wonder where the drive for business and industry from western Europeans came from, that it. Keith From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 21:24:49 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 15:24:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <01bb01d5b2b4$f1a138f0$d4e3aad0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <8FD4F13C-9FB1-4265-8EE5-B9429D31173E@gmail.com> I wasn?t looking for any practical suggestions, but thank you. It was very nice. As far as asexuality goes, in this context it just means a lack of sexual attraction. It doesn?t mean you can?t orgasm. It also doesn?t mean you don?t feel a romantic love for other people. Most asexual people have sex with their partners simply to please / cater to them. It has not been sexually selected against, probably because of expectations that women will ?do their duty?. Which I think has been an expectation before marriage was really a thing. Low / non-existent sexual desire affects about 1 in 10 women. Thank god I?m not one of them. SR Ballard > On Dec 14, 2019, at 2:02 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > There are no asexual people. Period. Have I experimented with over 7 billion people? Well, no, but.... > > It depends like anything else on how you define it. I had a young man in my college class who revealed to me that he and his new wife had sex once a month and presumably wanted to know my opinion of that. I assured him that it was OK. People have different sex drives, though I would certainly like to have heard from his wife on the subject. That's one way to define it - very low sex drive, which might be a matter of hormones or even technique. A woman virgin gets married, has a two minute man as a husband, never even gets aroused (foreplay? what's that? Jewish joke - 30 minutes of begging, told to me by a Jew). and decides that she is asexual. > > A full 25% of married women has NEVER had an orgasm. Men - go hide your heads, or conversely, get them out of the sand. Asexual or lousy mate? > > Reduced sensation - it could be that an orgasm is not fireworks for everyone. "Is that all there is? Is that all there is my friends, so keep on dancing, break out the booze" - thanks Peggy Lee." > > But zero sex drive? No ability to get erections and arousal? No orgasms by any means (some take a vibrator and lots of time)? Nah. Don't believe it. > > bill w > >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:32 PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat >> Subject: Re: [ExI] sex again >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 7:25 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> I, myself, find myself somewhere ?stuck in the middle?. Not trans enough for surgery to do any good, not cis enough to be comfortable. What is there to do for it? >> >> >> >> >?Be what you are. If neither a female nor a male body plan would suit you, then use what you've got (it's cheaper than and as effective as switching, plus you're already familiar with it) and try not to worry about gender-specific elements (save for any medical issues specific to whatever you've got). Agender, asexual, and aromantic people exist? >> >> >> >> >> >> We have made good progress just having a name for it. Consider the scenario: Leisure Suit Larry is schmoozing someone at the office and can?t seem to get that he doesn?t do it for her. >> >> >> >> She says: Save it Leisure. I am asexual. >> >> He: You are a sexual what? >> >> She: Asexual, one word. Google on it, come back and talk after you educate yourself. >> >> >> >> She could even do this with a pleasant demeanor and nice smile, to maintain cordial relations at the office. If Leisure starts schmoozing her again, she tells him he apparently went to a faulty source, try again. >> >> >> >> Having a name for something helps a hundred ways. Back in the old days before Aspergers, the socially awkward were mixed with those of us who like computers and math. Now those two things can be differentiated because of the name. Nerd and geek became titles to be earned. We can get those and we automatically get the socially awkward component free. It?s great. I love modern times. >> >> >> >> spike >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 21:34:52 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 13:34:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <22DD111D-5DB4-4973-A46C-B0EF31B033B9@gmail.com> References: <22DD111D-5DB4-4973-A46C-B0EF31B033B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: The promised reply to the rest of your (Spike's post): > On Friday, December 13, 2019, 05:07:06 PM PST, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> ?Well, I do see Boomers doing the usual hating on younger generations >> that seems to go back forever? > > It isn?t really hating Dan. I'm using 'hating on' in the more recent usage: sort of like picking on someone often because of their success or whatever they're doing. You know, like people say 'haters gotta hate.' > I recognize it might sound like it to young ears, but a continuous > trend I have seen my entire long life is a steady march toward a > kinder and gentler world. Younger people have known only that. > Older people must seem a bit harsh at times. Actually, I've seen Millennials pick on Zoomers (GenZs) for similar reasons Boomers pick on Millennials. And my readings of history seem to show this trend was even there in the Ancient world. Older folks, in all times, tend to see younger folks doing things different and all too often generalize to things like 'in my day, we were tougher' or 'in my day, we did things right.' The theme isn't so much the secular trend in things getting 'kinder and gentler,' but rather that each generation -- or many individuals in each generation -- really tends to see their teenage and young adult years as the Golden Age and their middle and old age as a rapid decline from that time. (It seems obvious why this is so, but it also seems obvious that Extropians and transhumanists -- like you and me -- should be exceptions to this rule, no?) Of course, many people also locate said Golden Age before them, especially conservatives in the US who tend to see the 01950s or even 01850s as the Golden Age. Note if you agree with them, you should reflect on what being a woman, a person of color (especially Native American or Black), or gay meant in the 01950s or the 01850s. If your political Golden Age was only good for upper middle class White males, then it's a rather restricted Golden Age -- king of akin to argue that absolute monarchy is great if you're the king: it's unlikely to win over others and it makes it look like you don't want a future of human emancipation along both social and technological lines, but a return to a strict class society with you on top and your foot planted firmly on everything else's neck. It's definitely not a libertarian or even individualist Golden Age for that matter. It's an etatist (statism) and collectivist one where everyone knows their place: those on top are free and everyone else better shut up and put up. >> ?I thought Boomers were supposed to be the generation that broke >> with traditions? > > And created new ones, as rigid as the ones they broke, ja. Agreed. Hence my earlier statement that this 'seems to go back forever.' I'm sure pre-Boomers had the same inter-generational strife. As pointed out above: I've read Ancients, especially Romans, complaining about the youth having it easy, not knowing the travails of their ancestors, trying wacky new things. (Heck, read Homer and there's already whining about earlier heroes were better -- from folks like Nestor.) > The new rules which are replacing the boomer rules are every > bit as rigid as their predecessors. > > Every generation must smash the idols of the previous. If you're recognizing this, then why complain about Millennials? >> ? but that?s kind of a stereotype too? > > Eh, stereotype shmereotype, it?s how people look at the world. > If you don?t do that to some extent you are overwhelmed with > data. I figure treat everyone as an individual regardless of > observable characteristics, understand that your general models > are general and filled with exceptions, move on, no worries. Show Quoted Content >> ? but that?s kind of a stereotype too? > > Eh, stereotype shmereotype, it?s how people look at the world. > If you don?t do that to some extent you are overwhelmed with > data. I figure treat everyone as an individual regardless of > observable characteristics, understand that your general models > are general and filled with exceptions, move on, no worries. The problem is when someone isn't willing to set aside the stereotype. And that happens often enough. The point for underscoring something is a stereotype is to show it's actually hindering noticing relevant differences. Let me give you a recent and rather ridiculous examples. You might have of Milo Y., an alt-right icon. A friend of mine was shocked that Milo is flamboyantly gay yet on alt-right because he (my friend) cleaved to the stereotype that gays can't be on the Right, that they must be on the Left. Holding that stereotype made him think Milo was some kind of maverick. But there are plenty of gays on the Right, from alt-right to neocon to palecons to traditionalists and the like. Sure, it might be that the average gay person is not likely to be on the Right, but there are definitely many on the Right. (And I'm not praising the Right here. But it's false to view people as sort doctrinally determined -- All X people must be on this part of the political spectrum or hold these political views. That view does simplify things, but in a very bad way.) >> ? (I?m guessing I?m surrounded by Boomers, so I mean no offense >> and I hope I don?t come across as agist.)? > > No worries, me lad. We are not as easily offended as the younger > generations are being trained to be. Here's where I think you might be wrong. I've met too many Boomers you seem to get easily offended when anyone goes against their views on politics or gender. They fly off the handle. That's where the whole 'ok boomer' thing came from: Millennials getting tired of the Boomers lecturing and bullying them over things like race and gender. > (Hey I get to say that, because I am a front-row seat witness to > how my own son is being educated in the public school system (8th > grade (my observation is they are still struggling with the illusion > that we can create a world in which no one is ever offended (methinks > we cannot (I admire the effort and the spirit of the thing > however.))))) Show Quoted Content > (Hey I get to say that, because I am a front-row seat witness to > how my own son is being educated in the public school system (8th > grade (my observation is they are still struggling with the illusion > that we can create a world in which no one is ever offended (methinks > we cannot (I admire the effort and the spirit of the thing > however.))))) It might be impossible to avoid offending everyone, though I think that's not carte blanche to offend for the sake of offense -- unless that's your thing. (I know it's not yours.) The usual thing is to try to get kids to break from seeing someone as different -- usually someone of a different culture who is peaceful (no one is arguing that neo-Nazis or neo-Confederates should be celebrated for their bigotry; or no one I respect is) or someone who has a disability. It's actually more mature than belittling or bullying people simply because they're both different and have lower status. Don't you think that's a more mature way to approach things? For instance, would you want your son be the bully who picks on, say, the effeminate boy or the kid who has a strong foreign accent or whose parents can't afford to buy her or him the latest iPhone? What the life lesson is your son were to be like that? What would he be readying himself for? > For instance? Do let me pick an extremey but realistic example, > one I saw just today. My son?s class went to the movies to see > Jumanji (kids have so much fun these days.) I went over to get > some lunch at the food court and this guy with approximately a > billion earrings and tattoos and bone thru the nose and boat > anchors thru the damn cheeks and oh mercy, came, sat a few > tables over from me with his girl who had a few orders of > magnitude fewer piercings but still a few orders of magnitude > more than I was comfortable sitting near, so I moved off, and > who woulda thunk, when that old time religion guy was growing > up he would never get it if you tried to tell him the truth: > a coupla thousand years from now when some geezer sees > something deeply revolting he will invoke your name with > an intentional Irish accent even if he isn?t a believer > (aaah Jaysus?) Show Quoted Content > For instance? Do let me pick an extremey but realistic example, > one I saw just today. My son?s class went to the movies to see > Jumanji (kids have so much fun these days.) I went over to get > some lunch at the food court and this guy with approximately a > billion earrings and tattoos and bone thru the nose and boat > anchors thru the damn cheeks and oh mercy, came, sat a few > tables over from me with his girl who had a few orders of > magnitude fewer piercings but still a few orders of magnitude > more than I was comfortable sitting near, so I moved off, and > who woulda thunk, when that old time religion guy was growing > up he would never get it if you tried to tell him the truth: > a coupla thousand years from now when some geezer sees > something deeply revolting he will invoke your name with > an intentional Irish accent even if he isn?t a believer > (aaah Jaysus?) I think your reaction is just a matter of what you're used to. An uncle of mine thinks guys wearing leggings and dying their hair is effeminate. Why? I certainly don't see it that way, but that's because he grew up in a different time. I kidded too because I know Boomers who grew their hair long were also teased for being effeminate simple because of that. > So ja, I am guilty of stereotyping to some extent and > won?t give it up (we geezers are that way, all of us) > but think about this: what do you suppose it sounds > like to those of us who remember fondly the croony > swoony old time singers such as Lou Rawls > > https://youtu.be/0QTrCBAqTyM > > and compare that beauty to pretty much any rap created > perhaps by the grandchildren of the young people seen > bopping to Rawls in the video above. Show Quoted Content > So ja, I am guilty of stereotyping to some extent and > won?t give it up (we geezers are that way, all of us) > but think about this: what do you suppose it sounds > like to those of us who remember fondly the croony > swoony old time singers such as Lou Rawls > > https://youtu.be/0QTrCBAqTyM > > and compare that beauty to pretty much any rap created > perhaps by the grandchildren of the young people seen > bopping to Rawls in the video above. This sounds like some really old timer saying his big band music is much better than the screeching of that Rock and/or Roll 'music.' :) > If the contrast isn?t stark enough, choose pretty much any > modern rap and go to the lyrics: oh mercy. Hell yes that > rap crap is offensive to me. We have a society falling > all over itself to offend no one, but has a huge blind > spot when rap. I think it's a matter of what people are used to. Like in my joke above, the average person growing up before you probably would find much of your young adulthood unlistenable. (One of my grandmothers was like that: anything more recent than the early 01960s was noise to her. She'd tolerate it, but all of us knew she didn't like it.) >> ?Less stigma would be great all around? > > Sure. But why not stigmatize rap? It is richly deserving of > the most shameful stigma I can imagine, yet we turn a blind > eye. We stigmatizes disco music, ja? It was the same thing > over and over and over, nothing, and it was inexplicably > displacing rock n roll, oh dear. Show Quoted Content >> ?Less stigma would be great all around? > > Sure. But why not stigmatize rap? It is richly deserving of > the most shameful stigma I can imagine, yet we turn a blind > eye. We stigmatizes disco music, ja? It was the same thing > over and over and over, nothing, and it was inexplicably > displacing rock n roll, oh dear. Rap and hip hop are fairly wide genres. You can find lots to get upset about in them, but there's always other stuff too. This is no different than someone recently telling me that there was a Rock song called 'Cocaine.' And there are other Rock songs celebrating stalking, violence, and murder. But stuff like that tends to be forget. (Another friend of mine pointed out that early Blues -- and she was talking about Ma Rainey and Bessie Smith, so this is way before everyone here's time -- were frankly sexual, but that didn't get recorded or played on the radio because the censors made sure of it didn't. So then along comes the more frankly sexual lyrics and gestures in Jazz and then Rock and then Rap and Hip Hop. Since most people don't know history, they don't know their past was cleansed and they see decadence surging rather than recognizing that people were sexualizing music all along. And add a huge dollop of Puritan or Victorian culture and you might wonder how anyone managed to procreate in the first place.:) > All of this went down a different (and quite random) road than I > intended, so do let me try to steer it back. > > I am all for less stigma, more openness and accepting-ity, and > all of it. I love the whole kinder and gentler school my son enjoys. I know you're mostly just having a little fun here. > He has seen exactly one major fight in 8 years of public education, > and it wouldn?t be considered major by my standards: guys used to go > at it to that extent regularly in the olden days. A fight like that > happened about twenty times per school year in a typical elementary. > Now it is practically an existential crisis. Well, ok, this is a good > thing, but do let me assure you: if these lads are ever recruited to > fight a war, evolution help us. We need to master battle bots > quickly, otherwise we are helpless as kittens. Show Quoted Content > He has seen exactly one major fight in 8 years of public education, > and it wouldn?t be considered major by my standards: guys used to go > at it to that extent regularly in the olden days. A fight like that > happened about twenty times per school year in a typical elementary. > Now it is practically an existential crisis. Well, ok, this is a good > thing, but do let me assure you: if these lads are ever recruited to > fight a war, evolution help us. We need to master battle bots > quickly, otherwise we are helpless as kittens. Given that the world as a whole is becoming less violent, I'm not sure there's cause for concern. And US-Americans are far more likely to be killed by their own government (and other US-Americans) than in war. Actually, I'm happy to see an overall decline in this kind of 'rite of passage' male aggression. I don't buy the fairy tale of allowing bullies free reign to toughen kids. I've seen too many people grow up with emotional problems arising from that. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 13, 2019, at 5:47 PM, Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? >> >> On Dec 13, 2019, at 4:56 PM, spike at rainier66.com wrote: >> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >> >> >> >?I?m not so sure Bill W suffers from that here, and I hope will provide some substantiation for his reckoning of trans folks being unhappy with their surgical outcomes? >> >> Sure but none of what I was talking about to start with required surgery of any kind. Any of the genders can be any other gender at will. Surgery is expensive and painful. > > I was responding to Bill W?s statement from earlier today: > > ?side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full operation to another sex are rarely happy with it.? > > He?s definitely referring to surgery there. > > Also, in regards to gender, it doesn?t appear that people, especially trans people, select their genders at will. Hence how they often experience problems fitting in and getting desired changes. It seems you?re viewing as whimsical and making much ado about nothing. That doesn?t go along with my personal experience of trans individuals or with what studies I?ve seen. > > Let me ask you: Do you experience either your gender or your orientation as something you can change at will? I certainly don?t. I?m not saying one can?t perhaps alter these over time with lots of effort. My guess would be for the most, even with transgender and genderqueer people, they experience their gender as something interior to them and not under their direct control. > > (I?ll respond to the rest of your post later. Have to head out for dinner with a friend.) > > Regards, > > Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 21:48:26 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:48:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 16:39 Keith Henson via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 11:05 AM Will Steinberg > wrote: > > snip > > > @Rafal: > > > > Fecundity is not a good measure of contribution to society. > > > > The least successful, biggest idiots reproduce the most. Smart, wealthy, > > successful people have fewer children. > > That was not how we got here. > > According to Gregory Clark, from at least 1250 to 1800, the well off > were about twice as successful as the poor in reproducing. The > selection of human psychological traits was as intense as that applied > to the tame Russian foxes. > > If you wonder where the drive for business and industry from western > Europeans came from, that it. > > Keith > What I meant is that fecundity is not a good measure of contribution to society, because of the present counterexample. Not to say success is absolutely uncorrelated with birth rate now and forever (as you say, that is how we and the animals before us got here,) but that fecundity may no longer be representative of "good for the species". > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 14 22:27:09 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 14:27:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> <01e501d5b2c0$24a9f240$6dfdd6c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004701d5b2cd$a066f740$e134e5c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2019 1:17 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:50 PM > wrote: Keep in mind: plenty of moderns get some really exciting jobs. Especially the singles spend more time at the office than at home, which explains why offices keep getting nicer and nicer, but homes don?t. >?Indeed. I suspect that is one of the reasons the particular example I've been using in this thread leapt out: she certainly has an exciting job (usually), but there are a few scenes contrasting her home life - both the life she had before moving to the city, and once there, her lonely times in her apartment - to what she experiences on duty - both in the office and on the street - as a police officer. Nearby the Tesla factory provides a great example. Musk brings in engineers from all over the world. Because of the housing conditions, many or most are young singles, eager to master the cool technologies in that modern factory. There is a really nice cafeteria there, a gym, showers, plenty of social life of sorts, lots and lots of excitement as that factory runs 24/7 cranking out as many of those expensive little pregnant roller skates as Musk can shove out the door. So? plenty of those guys leave the office only long enough to go home, sleep and come back. So how much do they need? Not much. We are seeing the rise of urban stealth campers: vehicles in which people are living but it isn?t at all clear by external view. If the very cheapest studio apartment rent is a couple thousand a month and it is being way underutilized, why not camp out in your van? Come to the office, clean up, go to the cafeteria, go to work, stay there until you get so tired you need to go sleep in the van again. Move it around, you?re there and gone, no one is the wiser, save the difference. Almost no one is the wiser: an idle retired engineer realizes one of those nifty IR thermometers can determine if there is a sleeping prole inside that van. An empty van assumes the same temperature as the surroundings. One containing even a very still sleeping prole would be warmer, even if by a fraction of a degree. Even a very well-designed stealth camper needs a vent somewhere if it is occupied. We could make a game of it: see if I can figure out a technology to detect life in that van vs their stealth tech. Ground rule: no touch. I can?t put a stethoscope on the side to detect snoring. That would be too easy. Anything else, fair game. Note: I don?t mind if people are doing urban stealth camping. I would do the same under those circumstances. I don?t intend to discourage them in any way. I do want to know, just to satisfy my curiosity, how common this is and how clever the urban stealthers have become. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 22:30:50 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:30:50 +0000 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 21:40, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > According to Gregory Clark, from at least 1250 to 1800, the well off > were about twice as successful as the poor in reproducing. The > selection of human psychological traits was as intense as that applied > to the tame Russian foxes. > > If you wonder where the drive for business and industry from western > Europeans came from, that it. > Maybe - but....... There were many thousands of more poor people reproducing than well off people, so more poor in total would survive. Inherited wealth and better education helped the well off keep at the top of the heap. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 23:27:49 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:27:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <22DD111D-5DB4-4973-A46C-B0EF31B033B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sexual attraction, both physical and emotional, is not under the control of the ego. Efforts to change it have been very disappointing to the religious groups who have tried it on homosexuals. (setup: have a male homosexual look at nude pictures of men followed by electric shocks to the genitals). Come to think of it (p.i.) you cannot change what you like in any area you can think of. You could get to the point where some food is at best acceptable but that is far from loving it. If any emotion were changeable just by thinking about it, therapists would starve. That throws some light on pedophiles: they cannot help who they are attracted to, any more than you can. Not to excuse anything at all, of course, but to understand it better. Mother Nature has really goofed here. There's more to life and to gender than sex. If you define gender by sexual attraction then we have to go back to very old data for the 40s and 50s. Few homosexuals are exclusively homosexual. A surprising percentage (don't remember) of heterosexuals have some homosexual experiences, broadly defined. Data from Kinsey. I am quite sure that there are substantial numbers of people who just don't have sex for a variety of reasons. For a single person it can be a lot of bother and worse. We can call them asexual if you like. I just tend to think that they have never had GOOD sex with a person they really care about. Nature did not design the sexual equipment of men and women to fit that well, eh? Just good enough is all evolution cares about. I have not looked on the web but surely one can find how to make love to a woman and to a man. One huge problem is the high sensitivity of the young male and the resulting premature ejaculations. One point I always made to my students is that the second time is usually relaxed, slower, plenty of time for the woman. Six times in one evening is not out of the question. Based on data. There is no manual of sexual intercourse that mandates that women do nothing with their hands during sex. Perhaps some women think it would insult the man. Which leads to another point: the two should talk about sex beforehand or at least sometime. Men have a lot to learn - and so do women (no, you don't blow!). But just like sex ed by parents, people are too nervous to do it. So much of our persona is given over to our sexual attractiveness but little about how to do it, and practice does NOT make perfect. If men were to be motivated ONLY by trying to insure that the woman has a great time, things would be much better, and the man would get his pleasure as well. But, like anything else in a marriage, we are not trained. Hundreds of books on how to get along in marriage. Why? Because parents didn't teach their kids. Why? Weren't any good at it. I don't remember the reference to the emotional results of transsexual surgeries. But I am sure I did read it. The doctors themselves knew of it and started making accepting patients for surgery contingent on going through therapy and a waiting period and so on. bill w On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:54 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The promised reply to the rest of your (Spike's post): > > On Friday, December 13, 2019, 05:07:06 PM PST, spike jones via > extropy-chat wrote: > > ?Well, I do see Boomers doing the usual hating on younger generations > > that seems to go back forever? > > > > It isn?t really hating Dan. > > > > I'm using 'hating on' in the more recent usage: sort of like picking on > someone often because of their success or whatever they're doing. You know, > like people say 'haters gotta hate.' > > > I recognize it might sound like it to young ears, but a continuous > > trend I have seen my entire long life is a steady march toward a > > kinder and gentler world. Younger people have known only that. > > Older people must seem a bit harsh at times. > > > > Actually, I've seen Millennials pick on Zoomers (GenZs) for similar > reasons Boomers pick on Millennials. And my readings of history seem to > show this trend was even there in the Ancient world. Older folks, in all > times, tend to see younger folks doing things different and all too often > generalize to things like 'in my day, we were tougher' or 'in my day, we > did things right.' The theme isn't so much the secular trend in things > getting 'kinder and gentler,' but rather that each generation -- or many > individuals in each generation -- really tends to see their teenage and > young adult years as the Golden Age and their middle and old age as a rapid > decline from that time. (It seems obvious why this is so, but it also seems > obvious that Extropians and transhumanists -- like you and me -- should be > exceptions to this rule, no?) > > > Of course, many people also locate said Golden Age before them, especially > conservatives in the US who tend to see the 01950s or even 01850s as the > Golden Age. Note if you agree with them, you should reflect on what being a > woman, a person of color (especially Native American or Black), or gay > meant in the 01950s or the 01850s. If your political Golden Age was only > good for upper middle class White males, then it's a rather restricted > Golden Age -- king of akin to argue that absolute monarchy is great if > you're the king: it's unlikely to win over others and it makes it look like > you don't want a future of human emancipation along both social and > technological lines, but a return to a strict class society with you on top > and your foot planted firmly on everything else's neck. It's definitely not > a libertarian or even individualist Golden Age for that matter. It's an > etatist (statism) and collectivist one where everyone knows their place: > those on top are free and everyone else better shut up and put up. > > > ?I thought Boomers were supposed to be the generation that broke > > with traditions? > > > > And created new ones, as rigid as the ones they broke, ja. > > > > Agreed. Hence my earlier statement that this 'seems to go back forever.' > I'm sure pre-Boomers had the same inter-generational strife. As pointed out > above: I've read Ancients, especially Romans, complaining about the youth > having it easy, not knowing the travails of their ancestors, trying wacky > new things. (Heck, read Homer and there's already whining about earlier > heroes were better -- from folks like Nestor.) > > > The new rules which are replacing the boomer rules are every > > bit as rigid as their predecessors. > > > Every generation must smash the idols of the previous. > > > > If you're recognizing this, then why complain about Millennials? > > > ? but that?s kind of a stereotype too? > > > > Eh, stereotype shmereotype, it?s how people look at the world. > > If you don?t do that to some extent you are overwhelmed with > > data. I figure treat everyone as an individual regardless of > > observable characteristics, understand that your general models > > are general and filled with exceptions, move on, no worries. > > Show Quoted Content > > ? but that?s kind of a stereotype too? > > > > Eh, stereotype shmereotype, it?s how people look at the world. > > If you don?t do that to some extent you are overwhelmed with > > data. I figure treat everyone as an individual regardless of > > observable characteristics, understand that your general models > > are general and filled with exceptions, move on, no worries. > > > > The problem is when someone isn't willing to set aside the stereotype. And > that happens often enough. The point for underscoring something is a > stereotype is to show it's actually hindering noticing relevant > differences. Let me give you a recent and rather ridiculous examples. You > might have of Milo Y., an alt-right icon. A friend of mine was shocked that > Milo is flamboyantly gay yet on alt-right because he (my friend) cleaved to > the stereotype that gays can't be on the Right, that they must be on the > Left. Holding that stereotype made him think Milo was some kind of > maverick. But there are plenty of gays on the Right, from alt-right to > neocon to palecons to traditionalists and the like. Sure, it might be that > the average gay person is not likely to be on the Right, but there are > definitely many on the Right. (And I'm not praising the Right here. But > it's false to view people as sort doctrinally determined -- All X people > must be on this part of the political spectrum or hold these political > views. That view does simplify things, but in a very bad way.) > > > ? (I?m guessing I?m surrounded by Boomers, so I mean no offense > > and I hope I don?t come across as agist.)? > > > > No worries, me lad. We are not as easily offended as the younger > > generations are being trained to be. > > > > Here's where I think you might be wrong. I've met too many Boomers you > seem to get easily offended when anyone goes against their views on > politics or gender. They fly off the handle. That's where the whole 'ok > boomer' thing came from: Millennials getting tired of the Boomers lecturing > and bullying them over things like race and gender. > > > (Hey I get to say that, because I am a front-row seat witness to > > how my own son is being educated in the public school system (8th > > grade (my observation is they are still struggling with the illusion > > that we can create a world in which no one is ever offended (methinks > > we cannot (I admire the effort and the spirit of the thing > > however.))))) > > Show Quoted Content > > (Hey I get to say that, because I am a front-row seat witness to > > how my own son is being educated in the public school system (8th > > grade (my observation is they are still struggling with the illusion > > that we can create a world in which no one is ever offended (methinks > > we cannot (I admire the effort and the spirit of the thing > > however.))))) > > > > It might be impossible to avoid offending everyone, though I think that's > not carte blanche to offend for the sake of offense -- unless that's your > thing. (I know it's not yours.) The usual thing is to try to get kids to > break from seeing someone as different -- usually someone of a different > culture who is peaceful (no one is arguing that neo-Nazis or > neo-Confederates should be celebrated for their bigotry; or no one I > respect is) or someone who has a disability. It's actually more mature than > belittling or bullying people simply because they're both different and > have lower status. Don't you think that's a more mature way to approach > things? For instance, would you want your son be the bully who picks on, > say, the effeminate boy or the kid who has a strong foreign accent or whose > parents can't afford to buy her or him the latest iPhone? What the life > lesson is your son were to be like that? What would he be readying himself > for? > > > For instance? Do let me pick an extremey but realistic example, > > one I saw just today. My son?s class went to the movies to see > > Jumanji (kids have so much fun these days.) I went over to get > > some lunch at the food court and this guy with approximately a > > billion earrings and tattoos and bone thru the nose and boat > > anchors thru the damn cheeks and oh mercy, came, sat a few > > tables over from me with his girl who had a few orders of > > magnitude fewer piercings but still a few orders of magnitude > > more than I was comfortable sitting near, so I moved off, and > > who woulda thunk, when that old time religion guy was growing > > up he would never get it if you tried to tell him the truth: > > a coupla thousand years from now when some geezer sees > > something deeply revolting he will invoke your name with > > an intentional Irish accent even if he isn?t a believer > > (aaah Jaysus?) > > Show Quoted Content > > For instance? Do let me pick an extremey but realistic example, > > one I saw just today. My son?s class went to the movies to see > > Jumanji (kids have so much fun these days.) I went over to get > > some lunch at the food court and this guy with approximately a > > billion earrings and tattoos and bone thru the nose and boat > > anchors thru the damn cheeks and oh mercy, came, sat a few > > tables over from me with his girl who had a few orders of > > magnitude fewer piercings but still a few orders of magnitude > > more than I was comfortable sitting near, so I moved off, and > > who woulda thunk, when that old time religion guy was growing > > up he would never get it if you tried to tell him the truth: > > a coupla thousand years from now when some geezer sees > > something deeply revolting he will invoke your name with > > an intentional Irish accent even if he isn?t a believer > > (aaah Jaysus?) > > > > I think your reaction is just a matter of what you're used to. An uncle of > mine thinks guys wearing leggings and dying their hair is effeminate. Why? > I certainly don't see it that way, but that's because he grew up in a > different time. I kidded too because I know Boomers who grew their hair > long were also teased for being effeminate simple because of that. > > > So ja, I am guilty of stereotyping to some extent and > > won?t give it up (we geezers are that way, all of us) > > but think about this: what do you suppose it sounds > > like to those of us who remember fondly the croony > > swoony old time singers such as Lou Rawls > > > > https://youtu.be/0QTrCBAqTyM > > > and compare that beauty to pretty much any rap created > > perhaps by the grandchildren of the young people seen > > bopping to Rawls in the video above. > > Show Quoted Content > > So ja, I am guilty of stereotyping to some extent and > > won?t give it up (we geezers are that way, all of us) > > but think about this: what do you suppose it sounds > > like to those of us who remember fondly the croony > > swoony old time singers such as Lou Rawls > > > > https://youtu.be/0QTrCBAqTyM > > > and compare that beauty to pretty much any rap created > > perhaps by the grandchildren of the young people seen > > bopping to Rawls in the video above. > > > > This sounds like some really old timer saying his big band music is much > better than the screeching of that Rock and/or Roll 'music.' :) > > > If the contrast isn?t stark enough, choose pretty much any > > modern rap and go to the lyrics: oh mercy. Hell yes that > > rap crap is offensive to me. We have a society falling > > all over itself to offend no one, but has a huge blind > > spot when rap. > > > > I think it's a matter of what people are used to. Like in my joke above, > the average person growing up before you probably would find much of your > young adulthood unlistenable. (One of my grandmothers was like that: > anything more recent than the early 01960s was noise to her. She'd tolerate > it, but all of us knew she didn't like it.) > > > ?Less stigma would be great all around? > > > > Sure. But why not stigmatize rap? It is richly deserving of > > the most shameful stigma I can imagine, yet we turn a blind > > eye. We stigmatizes disco music, ja? It was the same thing > > over and over and over, nothing, and it was inexplicably > > displacing rock n roll, oh dear. > > Show Quoted Content > > ?Less stigma would be great all around? > > > > Sure. But why not stigmatize rap? It is richly deserving of > > the most shameful stigma I can imagine, yet we turn a blind > > eye. We stigmatizes disco music, ja? It was the same thing > > over and over and over, nothing, and it was inexplicably > > displacing rock n roll, oh dear. > > > > Rap and hip hop are fairly wide genres. You can find lots to get upset > about in them, but there's always other stuff too. This is no different > than someone recently telling me that there was a Rock song called > 'Cocaine.' And there are other Rock songs celebrating stalking, violence, > and murder. But stuff like that tends to be forget. (Another friend of mine > pointed out that early Blues -- and she was talking about Ma Rainey and > Bessie Smith, so this is way before everyone here's time -- were frankly > sexual, but that didn't get recorded or played on the radio because the > censors made sure of it didn't. So then along comes the more frankly sexual > lyrics and gestures in Jazz and then Rock and then Rap and Hip Hop. Since > most people don't know history, they don't know their past was cleansed and > they see decadence surging rather than recognizing that people were > sexualizing music all along. And add a huge dollop of Puritan or Victorian > culture and you might wonder how anyone managed to procreate in the first > place.:) > > > All of this went down a different (and quite random) road than I > > intended, so do let me try to steer it back. > > > > I am all for less stigma, more openness and accepting-ity, and > > all of it. I love the whole kinder and gentler school my son enjoys. > > > > I know you're mostly just having a little fun here. > > > He has seen exactly one major fight in 8 years of public education, > > and it wouldn?t be considered major by my standards: guys used to go > > at it to that extent regularly in the olden days. A fight like that > > happened about twenty times per school year in a typical elementary. > > Now it is practically an existential crisis. Well, ok, this is a good > > thing, but do let me assure you: if these lads are ever recruited to > > fight a war, evolution help us. We need to master battle bots > > quickly, otherwise we are helpless as kittens. > > Show Quoted Content > > He has seen exactly one major fight in 8 years of public education, > > and it wouldn?t be considered major by my standards: guys used to go > > at it to that extent regularly in the olden days. A fight like that > > happened about twenty times per school year in a typical elementary. > > Now it is practically an existential crisis. Well, ok, this is a good > > thing, but do let me assure you: if these lads are ever recruited to > > fight a war, evolution help us. We need to master battle bots > > quickly, otherwise we are helpless as kittens. > > > Given that the world as a whole is becoming less violent, I'm not sure > there's cause for concern. And US-Americans are far more likely to be > killed by their own government (and other US-Americans) than in war. > Actually, I'm happy to see an overall decline in this kind of 'rite of > passage' male aggression. I don't buy the fairy tale of allowing bullies > free reign to toughen kids. I've seen too many people grow up with > emotional problems arising from that. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > On Dec 13, 2019, at 5:47 PM, Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ? > On Dec 13, 2019, at 4:56 PM, spike at rainier66.com wrote: > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat > > > > > >?I?m not so sure Bill W suffers from that here, and I hope will provide > some substantiation for his reckoning of trans folks being unhappy with > their surgical outcomes? > > > > Sure but none of what I was talking about to start with required surgery > of any kind. Any of the genders can be any other gender at will. Surgery > is expensive and painful. > > > I was responding to Bill W?s statement from earlier today: > > ?side note on gender - the sad facts are that people who go for the full > operation to another sex are rarely happy with it.? > > He?s definitely referring to surgery there. > > Also, in regards to gender, it doesn?t appear that people, especially > trans people, select their genders at will. Hence how they often experience > problems fitting in and getting desired changes. It seems you?re viewing as > whimsical and making much ado about nothing. That doesn?t go along with my > personal experience of trans individuals or with what studies I?ve seen. > > Let me ask you: Do you experience either your gender or your orientation > as something you can change at will? I certainly don?t. I?m not saying one > can?t perhaps alter these over time with lots of effort. My guess would be > for the most, even with transgender and genderqueer people, they experience > their gender as something interior to them and not under their direct > control. > > (I?ll respond to the rest of your post later. Have to head out for dinner > with a friend.) > > Regards, > > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Sat Dec 14 23:28:47 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 15:28:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <22DD111D-5DB4-4973-A46C-B0EF31B033B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008a01d5b2d6$3caffe50$b60ffaf0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >?This sounds like some really old timer saying his big band music is much better than the screeching of that Rock and/or Roll 'music.' :) >>?If the contrast isn?t stark enough, choose pretty much any modern rap and go to the lyrics: oh mercy. Hell yes that rap crap is offensive to me. We have a society falling all over itself to offend no one, but has a huge blind spot when rap. >?I think it's a matter of what people are used to. Like in my joke above, the average person growing up before you probably would find much of your young adulthood unlistenable. (One of my grandmothers was like that: anything more recent than the early 01960s was noise to her. She'd tolerate it, but all of us knew she didn't like it.) Here?s one for ya Dan. I was visiting my grandmother in 1984. The discussion came to Rock n Roll. She was adamant about that: when the British came in, music went out, nothing good has been on the radio since then, etc. I suggested there was a few songs there she might like and got her to agree to listen to one song. Eventually Stevie Wonder came on with I Just Called to Say I Love You. I had her sit and listen. Afterwards, she agreed it was a nice song with nice lyrics. She didn?t like that guy singing it however. She suggested that if they were to get Pat Boone to cover it, then it had a lot of potential. Now that comment rattles around in my brain. If we were to Pat-Boone-ize the rap and hip hop, perhaps at least some of it can be redeemed. It is a bit difficult to imagine those lyrics in Pat?s croony swoony style however. Perhaps those particular genres just don?t translate well into croony swoony. Side note: Pat Boone put out a ?heavy metal? album. I thought it was a joke, until I looked it up recently and played some of the songs on it. His versions were a huge improvement on the originals in every case, very melodic and easily understood lyrics, but one sticks in my mind. Pat covered Alice Cooper?s No More Mister Nice Guy, which was really kind of a musical joke in 1973: we were to imagine Cooper helping little old ladies and such. OK now take those lyrics and Pat-Boone-ize them, and it again becomes a musical gag from the opposite point of view: try to imagine Boone going to church incognito and Reverend Smith punching him in the nose. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Dec 14 23:46:04 2019 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:46:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] housing again, was RE: sex again In-Reply-To: References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 3:13 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I think it might help to focus on "person", not "woman". That is, the > needs of a single working individual regardless of gender. This, too, is > one of the changes since the times of old: many women are living on their > own and focused on careers; the needs and wants of such women are not > substantially different from those of men in the same position. > Thank you for saying this so i didn't have to > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 00:30:13 2019 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 16:30:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 3:46 PM BillK wrote: snip > > If you wonder where the drive for business and industry from western > > Europeans came from, that it. > > > > Maybe - but....... > There were many thousands of more poor people reproducing than well > off people, so more poor in total would survive. That's not what the contemporary probate records show. Over that time, the well off genetically displaced the poor. See the section on "downward social mobility.". True, the poor had children, but they died in droves in the frequent famines. I probably can't get you to read "genetically capitalist". but if you are not going to read it, should you be making unjustified comments? > Inherited wealth and > better education helped the well off keep at the top of the heap. Clark makes the case that it was genetics, particularly such traits as being willing to wait for a reward and whatever human genes are behind literacy and numeracy. The selection was as intense as that applied to the tame Russian foxes. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 01:09:52 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 01:09:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 00:33, Keith Henson via extropy-chat wrote: > > That's not what the contemporary probate records show. Over that > time, the well off genetically displaced the poor. See the section on > "downward social mobility.". True, the poor had children, but they > died in droves in the frequent famines. I probably can't get you to > read "genetically capitalist". but if you are not going to read it, > should you be making unjustified comments? > > Clark makes the case that it was genetics, particularly such traits as > being willing to wait for a reward and whatever human genes are behind > literacy and numeracy. > > The selection was as intense as that applied to the tame Russian foxes. > As you well know, Clark's claims have been much criticised. He is not a geneticist, he is an economist. He has no genetic evidence at all for his claims. Doubtless the rich enjoy being told that they deserve to be rich due to superior genetics and the poor deserve to live in poverty. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:00:21 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:00:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] housing again In-Reply-To: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> References: <017e01d5b2a5$1e81aae0$5b8500a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <042B4936-AD17-4C90-8857-0D93CED69A15@gmail.com> On Dec 14, 2019, at 9:40 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > OK then, let's think it over and see if our housing needs were reduced by > technology. I would argue that they are. > > Before I present my notions, I will offer a chance for you to think it over > and post ideas. > > spike The problem isn?t that people wouldn?t live in higher density housing. They most definitely would. Where it?s permitted, in fact, high density housing seems to work out fine. (And not to bring up generational issues again, but data shows Millennials prefer smaller houses, even apartments over single-family houses, and they prefer to live in cities rather than in suburbs.) However, there?s restrictive zoning laws (they prevent mixed use zones and tend to favor large single family houses over duplexes, apartments, time homes, etc.) and that whole era of seeing a consumer product (the house) as an investment. There are already many technological advances in housing, but some of these are restricted for the above reasons. You mention SF. That?s an area where it?s extremely hard to build new housing, especially high density housing. Compare it to places like Seattle where there?s at least some new construction. (Still far behind what?s needed to absorb all the newcomers, but it?s helped.) By the way, here?s a site that promotes all kinds of housing reforms to make better cities for all: https://marketurbanismreport.com/ Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:12:42 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:12:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computer Factoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That helps, thanks. But it doesn't seem anything like that would be touring complete? On Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 9:33 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> I understand how to program a computer to factor number.* >> *But how is this done with a quantum computer?* >> *Is it all quantum hardware/configure? Or is some part of that software?* >> *And what would it mean to load a program into a quantum computer or what >> is it all about?* >> *Brent* >> > > Every factoring algorithm ever discover that can be run on a conventional > computer runs in exponential time, that is to say the time it takes to > factor a number is proportional to 2^N where N is the number of digits in > the number you want to factor, so even a small increase in N could lead to > a huge increase in time. In 1994 Peter Shor found a algorithm that only > increased in polynomial time, that is to say the time it takes to factor > a number is proportional to N^2, a far slower rate. The only problem was > that Shor's Algorithm could only be run on a Quantum Computer but that > problem is less serious now than it was in 1994 and is becoming even less > serious every day. > > Here is a explanation of how Shore's Algorithm works: > > https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 > > 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:19:13 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 21:19:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:23 AM SR Ballard wrote: > I don?t know why we need to bring slurs into this, but, from an > evolutionary perspective, being trans (and getting surgery for it, > rendering oneself unable to reproduce) would cause it to be self-limiting > and therefore not something to worry about in the long term. > > It?s simply a fact of life. > > I, myself, find myself somewhere ?stuck in the middle?. Not trans enough > for surgery to do any good, not cis enough to be comfortable. What is there > to do for it? > ### As I said, it's not morally wrong to be trans, it's just a disability, and yes, it is evolutionarily self-limiting. At some point in the future, it will be possible to perform psychosurgery or even auto-psychosurgery to change the human mind. Some people who are uncomfortable with parts of their selves will opt to make themselves closer to the average, some may choose to explore other configurations. More power to them. While I am quite comfortable with who I am now, I will also most likely decide to change myself to better survive in the computational substrate after uploading. This may involve adaptation to asexual reproduction (copying), or adaptation to merging with other minds (syncytium formation). I'm genuinely curious how it will all turn out. In the present however, I am displeased about the instances where an activist trans-sexual ideology results in harm to children. There have been cases where deranged parents, often single parents, collaborated with unethical physicians and psychiatrists to mutilate children, often boys, first by pressuring or manipulating them to express a desire for sex change, and then proceeding to perform irreversible surgeries, including castration. This is evil. While I am sure most trans-sexuals are just as appalled by it as I am, there is among them a vociferous and influential activist minority which should be resisted. But back to syncytia: Slime molds live happily as individuals but under stress they bunch up and work and breed as one organism, sometimes in the form of a syncytium. In the computational substrate we might undergo similar transitions, especially while preparing for interplanetary or interstellar propagation. Busy individuals would beaver away, collecting resources on their own but from time to time they would pile onto each other in the thousands or millions, pool their moolah, and load specially curated copies (analogous to propagules) onto laser-driven waferships for galaxy-wide dissemination. The future belongs to those who show up. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:20:33 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 21:20:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:04 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Asheville North Carolina is full of 'different' people and far cheaper. > bill w > ### Are you in Asheville? I am now staying in Winston-Salem. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:25:25 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 21:25:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> <017901d5b2a1$e18a8c90$a49fa5b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > @Rafal: > > Fecundity is not a good measure of contribution to society. > > The least successful, biggest idiots reproduce the most. Smart, wealthy, > successful people have fewer children. > ### Is that a failure of the biggest idiots or a failure of the smart? I'd say it's a failure of both them, the former for having children they shouldn't have, the latter for not having the children needed to keep the flame burning. Although admittedly, the coming of the AI will make it all irrelevant. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:29:15 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 21:29:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> <017901d5b2a1$e18a8c90$a49fa5b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 1:58 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > At least you should care more about obesity and lack of education far > before you care about transgenderism. That fact does show your bias. > ### But I do care about obesity and other stuff! Don't get me started! :) > > Actually I think you are one of the smartest posters on here but it's > funny your right wing stuff is kinda a meme (the newer definition of meme.) > ### Thank you. And yes, I am so right wing it makes me laugh when I look in the mirror! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:33:22 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:33:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> <014201d5b294$dda96db0$98fc4910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: No. But I've been there and heard a lot about it when we were trying to decide where to move to. We eventually moved to Fairfield Glade, near Crossville, TN. Best weather I have ever experienced. In Mississippi now. Evil is an insufficient word for doing sex surgeries on minors. I have been of the opinion for many years that the next rights addressed are going to be, need to be, children's rights. This one should be at the top of the list. bill w On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 8:29 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 12:04 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Asheville North Carolina is full of 'different' people and far cheaper. >> bill w >> > > ### Are you in Asheville? I am now staying in Winston-Salem. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Dec 15 02:46:45 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 18:46:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: <5C9E5C7C-3C99-4D1B-AF78-C614F75A39B9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 6:22 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In the present however, I am displeased about the instances where an > activist trans-sexual ideology results in harm to children. There have been > cases where deranged parents, often single parents, collaborated with > unethical physicians and psychiatrists to mutilate children, often boys, > first by pressuring or manipulating them to express a desire for sex > change, and then proceeding to perform irreversible surgeries, including > castration. > Do you have literally any documented evidence of this? There are a number of people who make up claims like this, wholesale, and trick others into believing them - but every time I've seen claims like this investigated, the alleged evil either did not happen, or was extremely different than was stated. I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying that your language fits the pattern of someone who has been duped into believing one of these tales, so hard evidence would be needed to believe what you're saying here. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 02:47:27 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 21:47:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 5:06 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: What I meant is that fecundity is not a good measure of contribution to > society, because of the present counterexample. Not to say success is > absolutely uncorrelated with birth rate now and forever (as you say, that > is how we and the animals before us got here,) but that fecundity may no > longer be representative of "good for the species". > ### Well, yes, fecundity is not an independent measure of goodness in the same way intelligence is not an independent measure of goodness. It all depends on how you use it. Breeding morons and evil geniuses are both to be deprecated. Still, fecundity and intelligence are sine qua non of survival and progress, so the smart fecund are socially more valuable than the non-breeding brights. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 03:00:59 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:00:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 8:12 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, 15 Dec 2019 at 00:33, Keith Henson via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > That's not what the contemporary probate records show. Over that > > time, the well off genetically displaced the poor. See the section on > > "downward social mobility.". True, the poor had children, but they > > died in droves in the frequent famines. I probably can't get you to > > read "genetically capitalist". but if you are not going to read it, > > should you be making unjustified comments? > > > > Clark makes the case that it was genetics, particularly such traits as > > being willing to wait for a reward and whatever human genes are behind > > literacy and numeracy. > > > > The selection was as intense as that applied to the tame Russian foxes. > > > > As you well know, Clark's claims have been much criticised. > He is not a geneticist, he is an economist. He has no genetic evidence > at all for his claims. > > > > Doubtless the rich enjoy being told that they deserve to be rich due > to superior genetics and the poor deserve to live in poverty. > > ### There is strong evidence for genetic selection in the past 10 000 years, in fact, in that period human evolution kicked into overdrive. Whether the poor deserve to live in poverty is a normative question, but whether genetics explains poverty is a question of fact and it's rather extensively answered in multiple peer-reviewed publications. The poor are less intelligent, less conscientious, more impulsive than the non-poor (middle class and the rich), and yes, these traits explain poverty. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Dec 15 01:48:58 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 17:48:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Cosmic discrepancy evidence of quantum gravity? Message-ID: <20191214174858.Horde.XuBXGkHQPuzBXPNif4L8zBg@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> So, long story short, for the last few years different, but increasingly accurate methods of measuring the Hubble Constant have been converging on increasingly precise but DIFFERENT values for it. The three methods and the values they measure for H0 are: the Planck satellite method based on measuring the angular width of the image of the early quantum fluctuations that superimposed upon the cosmic microwave background (CMB) which measures H0 = 67.4 ? 0.5 km/s/Mpc, the Cepheid variable method, based on the use of Cepheid variable stars in distant galaxies as standard candles, measures H0 = 73.8 ? 1.0 km/s/Mpc, and the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB) method which uses the luminosity of brightest red giants in nearby galaxies as standard candle to measure Ho = 69.8 ? 0.8 km/s/Mpc. All three measurements are different yet precise enough that their standard errors don't overlap. https://media.universe-of-learning.org/documents/UoL_SciBriefing_2019-10-23-HubbleConstant.pdf https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.05922 https://www.space.com/hubble-constant-discrepancy-explained.html Excerpt----------------- There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis." ------------------------ This mystery is perplexing. Anybody have any thoughts as to what is going on here? I have a whacky hypothesis: Universes, Everett branches, or causal cells as I have called them in the past, are particles of gravitometric space-time. As such the expansion rate of the universe is subject to quantum randomness and thus differs between measurements. Thoughts, anyone? Stuart LaForge From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 03:25:24 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:25:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 22:14 Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Whether the poor deserve to live in poverty is a normative question, but > whether genetics explains poverty is a question of fact and it's rather > extensively answered in multiple peer-reviewed publications. The poor are > less intelligent, less conscientious, more impulsive than the non-poor > (middle class and the rich), and yes, these traits explain poverty. > > Rafal > Recent research showed, Lamarckian style, that trauma-related olfactory memories are somehow transferred to the germ of mice and then to their children. (https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.3594) The era of genetics as ultimate determinant will be closing shortly. Experience flows back into the entire hereditary structure, whether it is through genes, body flora, methylation, histone configuration, memes, &c. Such genetic supremacy against the poor is dancing on the edge of a knife and ends in genocide. Genetic wounds will all be able to be healed soon anyway. The question is, Can the world handle 10 billion smart people? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 15 03:38:21 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:38:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016801d5b2f9$194ec090$4bec41b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >?Genetic wounds will all be able to be healed soon anyway. The question is, >?Can the world handle 10 billion smart people? That is far easier than the alternative. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 15 03:43:11 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 19:43:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Cosmic discrepancy evidence of quantum gravity? In-Reply-To: <20191214174858.Horde.XuBXGkHQPuzBXPNif4L8zBg@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191214174858.Horde.XuBXGkHQPuzBXPNif4L8zBg@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: <016e01d5b2f9$c68455e0$538d01a0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Stuart LaForge via Excerpt----------------- There's a puzzling mystery going on in the universe. Measurements of the rate of cosmic expansion using different methods keep turning up disagreeing results. The situation has been called a "crisis." ------------------------ Thoughts, anyone? Stuart LaForge _______________________________________________ We are in a sim. The guy who wrote us is messing with our virtual heads. But don't worry, he will get his: the guy who wrote him will see what he is doing and mess with his. Alternative theory: we have some fundamental flaw in our understanding of physics. This possibility is most exciting, for it suggests lots of cool things to learn and work to do. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 04:26:04 2019 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:26:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 9 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 7:47 PM BillK wrote: snip > As you well know, Clark's claims have been much criticised. > He is not a geneticist, he is an economist. He has no genetic evidence > at all for his claims. I really do no see how intense selection can avoid genetics. Do you doubt intense selection changed the psychology of those tame Rusian Foxes? Do you have any reason to expect humans to be free of this effect? > > > Doubtless the rich enjoy being told that they deserve to be rich due > to superior genetics and the poor deserve to live in poverty. After about 1800 this selection mode quit operating. Why is not entirely clear. Some large UK genetic studies have found about 30 genes associated with wealth. But I doubt there are many people (rich or poor) who have any idea of the selection the UK population was subjected too. But what makes one person different from the next? Keith > BillK > > From atymes at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 04:27:45 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 20:27:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Cosmic discrepancy evidence of quantum gravity? In-Reply-To: <20191214174858.Horde.XuBXGkHQPuzBXPNif4L8zBg@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191214174858.Horde.XuBXGkHQPuzBXPNif4L8zBg@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 7:22 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Thoughts, anyone? > Measurements from Earth orbit alone won't solve this. We need observatories elsewhere in our solar system. Which isn't going to be affordable until we actually make serious projects of getting the cost of launch down - which means not surrendering that money to contractors intending to soak up all the funding precisely to prevent this from happening. If that means funding a bunch of different projects, with no one prime contractor allowed to participate in more than one, just to prevent any one contractor from getting all the money, so be it. (Yes, I am pointing out the SLS as a non-serious option, despite what its senior government boosters claim. I point to the evidence of cost and schedule slippage, and the high cost per launch even if it concludes, and how it is crowding out - politically more than financially, but still - a lot of other projects NASA would like to pursue that would have far more impact, as evidence.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 05:31:56 2019 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 23:31:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computer Factoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Quantum computers are turning complete as quantum logic gates are universal. However not every computation can be accelerated exponentially. Jason On Saturday, December 14, 2019, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > That helps, thanks. But it doesn't seem anything like that would be > touring complete? > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2019, 9:33 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 9:50 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *> I understand how to program a computer to factor number.* >>> *But how is this done with a quantum computer?* >>> *Is it all quantum hardware/configure? Or is some part of that >>> software?* >>> *And what would it mean to load a program into a quantum computer or >>> what is it all about?* >>> *Brent* >>> >> >> Every factoring algorithm ever discover that can be run on a conventional >> computer runs in exponential time, that is to say the time it takes to >> factor a number is proportional to 2^N where N is the number of digits in >> the number you want to factor, so even a small increase in N could lead to >> a huge increase in time. In 1994 Peter Shor found a algorithm that only >> increased in polynomial time, that is to say the time it takes to factor >> a number is proportional to N^2, a far slower rate. The only problem was >> that Shor's Algorithm could only be run on a Quantum Computer but that >> problem is less serious now than it was in 1994 and is becoming even less >> serious every day. >> >> Here is a explanation of how Shore's Algorithm works: >> >> https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=208 >> >> 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 Sun Dec 15 10:19:54 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 05:19:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Computer Factoring In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 12:35 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Quantum computers are turning complete as quantum logic gates are > universal. However not every computation can be accelerated exponentially.* True, but the most interesting problems probably can be accelerated exponentially. I think the killer application for Quantum Computers won't be factoring or finding better solutions to the Traveling Salesman Problem but in simulating quantum systems. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 15 13:13:44 2019 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 13:13:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] sex again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1062463994.24224989.1576415624136@mail.yahoo.com> On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 6:22 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In the present however, I am displeased about the instances where an > activist trans-sexual ideology results in harm to children. There have been > cases where deranged parents, often single parents, collaborated with > unethical physicians and psychiatrists to mutilate children, often boys, > first by pressuring or manipulating them to express a desire for sex > change, and then proceeding to perform irreversible surgeries, including > castration. > Adrian replied: Do you have literally any documented evidence of this?? There are a number of people who make up claims like this, wholesale, and trick others into believing them - but every time I've seen claims like this investigated, the alleged evil either did not happen, or was extremely different than was stated. I'm not saying you're lying.? I'm saying that your language fits the pattern of someone who has been duped into believing one of these tales, so hard evidence would be needed to believe what you're saying here. And here's my reply (which I don't know how many of you will see, as extropy-chat tends to eat replies from yahoo)?Here in the UK we have a charity called Mermaids that supports children with gender dysphoria and its families. It has attracted headlines for its approach, it has quite a big media profile and in turn has attracted a lot of criticism from people concerned about Mermaids. Things got so heated that a judge had to ban its chief executive Susie Green and catholic journalist Caroline Farrow from mentioning each other by name on Twitter. Susie Green took her child to the US to get hormone treatments at an age below that allowed in the UK. She also took her child to Thailand for gender reassignment surgery at the age of 16, which is two years below the legal limit in the UK. This case was sufficiently controversial that Thailand promptly brought in new laws to prevent under 18s having this surgery and requiring 18-20 year olds to have parental consent. Here's an article hosted by Forbes written from an anti-Mermaids perspective that gives plenty of links for its assertions:Pseudo-Scientific Hokum And The Experimentation On Children's Bodies | | | | | | | | | | | Pseudo-Scientific Hokum And The Experimentation On Children's Bodies Julian Vigo How did a Disney character come to be part of paradoxical basis for convincing people that a child can be born i... | | | Tom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 22:35:01 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 17:35:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? Message-ID: >From the antlers of elk to the plumage of birds to the coloration of fish, males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not true for our own species. When I Googled "business women's pant suit" I got images of women in hot pink Hot Pink And bright red Bright Red And vivid Yellow Vivid Yellow I can't imagine a male IBM executive showing up to a meeting in a hot pink suit even if he had a standard black tie. But why not? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Dec 15 23:09:27 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 15:09:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b401d5b39c$b3657ae0$1a3070a0$@rainier66.com> >? On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat : [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? >From the antlers of elk to the plumage of birds to the coloration of fish, males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not true for our own species. When I Googled "business women's pant suit" I got images of women in hot pink Hot Pink And bright red Bright Red And vivid Yellow Vivid Yellow I can't imagine a male IBM executive showing up to a meeting in a hot pink suit even if he had a standard black tie. But why not? John K Clark Ah John, you are soooo not a hipster. Even stodgy old Uncle spike is far hipper than thou, me lad. I am a hipster daddio in comparison to your paltry L7 mayor of Squaresville approach to the question, for we hipsters have already solved this and every related question by merely taking to the logical conclusion the concept of complete acceptance and inclusion. Gender is a fiction. Strike it from your mind completely. The notion is a completely artificial distinction, created to explain why some humans bear babies and others do not. Reject that theory. Be free of sexism. Rid your language of any reference to gender. If you are a speaker of Spanish or any of those non-hip languages, replace all those retro las and els with good new inclusive unisex thes. Even the notion leads ignorant children to ask such absurdities as ?Why are men generally taller than women?? and other such faulty-assumption inquiries. The children of course will be indoctrinated until they know that men and women do not differ in height as far as can be scientifically determined. They may look at you like you have lost your mind of course, but raising children takes patience. The people in those three links you sent are all unknown gender, regardless of how pleasant it is to gaze on all three, particularly that person in yellow (it has such a pleasant smile, mercy, my heart flutters!) Declaring all humans genderless has ended sexism, and solved so many related problems. I predict the notion will soon be generalized to end racism as well. John your subject line contains two undefined terms. Please clarify. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 00:39:01 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 18:39:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not true for our own species. John Clark Au contraire - you are thinking of the era of the dowdy suit for men, a fashion that should have died long ago, and the tie with it. There is plenty of evidence that men have been dandies and clothes horses in past centuries. 16th century for sure for men was very ornate clothing and colors and lace and stockings......Fops, Cavaliers in particular Today women want men in tuxes, which are nearly all alike. Why? Because otherwise the men might show up in clothes competing with or even outshining the women. I would. I love clothes with patterns and colors, particularly yellow. I would have made a great dandy. A Cavalier or a fop. Big fancy feathers and purple hose. I envy women who can wear anything and be accepted. But wear something foppish and you get called queer. bill w On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 4:38 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > From the antlers of elk to the plumage of birds to the coloration of fish, > males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not > true for our own species. When I Googled "business women's pant suit" I got > images of women in hot pink > > Hot Pink > > > And bright red > > Bright Red > > > > And vivid Yellow > > Vivid Yellow > > > I can't imagine a male IBM executive showing up to a meeting in a hot pink > suit even if he had a standard black tie. But why not? > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 02:49:59 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 19:49:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good question. Any chance we might be able to change this? Could someone break the mold and release the flood of men's fashion change? Or do we all not want to change? On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 5:40 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not > true for our own species. John Clark > > Au contraire - you are thinking of the era of the dowdy suit for men, a > fashion that should have died long ago, and the tie with it. There is > plenty of evidence that men have been dandies and clothes horses in past > centuries. 16th century for sure for men was very ornate clothing and > colors and lace and stockings......Fops, Cavaliers in particular > > Today women want men in tuxes, which are nearly all alike. Why? Because > otherwise the men might show up in clothes competing with or even > outshining the women. I would. I love clothes with patterns and colors, > particularly yellow. I would have made a great dandy. A Cavalier or a > fop. Big fancy feathers and purple hose. I envy women who can wear > anything and be accepted. But wear something foppish and you get called > queer. > bill w > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 4:38 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> From the antlers of elk to the plumage of birds to the coloration of >> fish, males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's >> not true for our own species. When I Googled "business women's pant suit" I >> got images of women in hot pink >> >> Hot Pink >> >> >> And bright red >> >> Bright Red >> >> >> >> And vivid Yellow >> >> Vivid Yellow >> >> >> I can't imagine a male IBM executive showing up to a meeting in a hot >> pink suit even if he had a standard black tie. But why not? >> >> 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 02:51:37 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 19:51:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Maybe it has something to do with the fact that common men will do absolutely everything to avoid appearing gay, in any way? On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 7:49 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Very good question. > Any chance we might be able to change this? Could someone break the mold > and release the flood of men's fashion change? > Or do we all not want to change? > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 5:40 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not >> true for our own species. John Clark >> >> Au contraire - you are thinking of the era of the dowdy suit for men, a >> fashion that should have died long ago, and the tie with it. There is >> plenty of evidence that men have been dandies and clothes horses in past >> centuries. 16th century for sure for men was very ornate clothing and >> colors and lace and stockings......Fops, Cavaliers in particular >> >> Today women want men in tuxes, which are nearly all alike. Why? Because >> otherwise the men might show up in clothes competing with or even >> outshining the women. I would. I love clothes with patterns and colors, >> particularly yellow. I would have made a great dandy. A Cavalier or a >> fop. Big fancy feathers and purple hose. I envy women who can wear >> anything and be accepted. But wear something foppish and you get called >> queer. >> bill w >> >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 4:38 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> From the antlers of elk to the plumage of birds to the coloration of >>> fish, males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's >>> not true for our own species. When I Googled "business women's pant suit" I >>> got images of women in hot pink >>> >>> Hot Pink >>> >>> >>> And bright red >>> >>> Bright Red >>> >>> >>> >>> And vivid Yellow >>> >>> Vivid Yellow >>> >>> >>> I can't imagine a male IBM executive showing up to a meeting in a hot >>> pink suit even if he had a standard black tie. But why not? >>> >>> 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 spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 16 03:30:52 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 19:30:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013001d5b3c1$387d1840$a97748c0$@rainier66.com> On Behalf Of Brent Allsop via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? >?Very good question. Any chance we might be able to change this? Could someone break the mold and release the flood of men's fashion change? Or do we all not want to change? Brent I have a fun story for ya. At the start of my engineering career, a colleague was telling me of his childhood on the Maine coast not far from the Canadian border. There were few jobs, so many of the locals subsisted on hauling their food from the sea, fishing and crabbing. Those with means had a boat they could take out from shore and haul in more fish and lobstuh. The lobstuh were worth good money, so the boatmen had cash. The shoremen had no boat and no money, so they caught crabs in their traps and mullet for food. The boatmen had wool pants, which were far more ideal than the cotton dungarees the shoremen wore: more protection from the elements, good insulators even when wet, etc. But the wool pants were expensive, 14 dollars! The shoremen had to content themselves with the 4 dollar cotton pants. One day the shoremen noticed a man walking by they didn?t recognize, which happened often even in that remote area so it would have escaped notice, but something really odd: this shoreman had his fishing pole and crab trap just like the others, but? wool trousers! Only boatmen generally had those. Strange indeed. They mentioned it to the sheriff, who went and talked to the man on a hunch. Sheriff found him in possession of a radio transmitter. Wool-trousers shoreman was a Nazi spy, scouting out possible invasion sites. He had almost every detail right, down to the local accent and sports results, but missed that wool pants detail. A week later, a second shoreman was spotted wearing wool. Got him too. The Nazis never invaded. The story rattled around in my brain for years. I always wanted wool pants but assumed they were too expensive. Recently I realized my budget wouldn?t be too strained by a 200 dollar pair of pants, so I went online looking for them and discovered an Army surplus site. Army trousers came in four sizes, but one is small-long, so I ordered a pair. For 17 bucks I could risk it. I could make them fit around the waist by adjusting them all the way down, but they were still too long, so I looked online at all the things one does to prevent wool from shrinking, and reversed every advice. I shrunk them enough to make them fit without modification. I discovered that I, with my oddball shape, am one of four standard men?s sizes. I ended up buying a dozen pairs of the 17 dollar wool trousers, and shrunk them all to fit. Now I am so GI Joe, and it didn?t even cost me much. They feel great, look good, dated for sure, but hey, so am I. Being a senior citizen has some advantages: freedom. Nooooobody cares how you dress. So you get to be comfortable. Clarification, if anyone does care how I dress, I am not in that group of those concerned. I do like comfort however, and my bride says the army trousers look good, with the regulation crease. Fun aside: these pants are 100% wool and were manufactured in 1951, some in 1952. Yet they still have that wool smell after all this time. They couldn?t be offgassing much, or they would have sublimed to nothing by now, nearly 70 years down the road. This tells me that the nose must be able to detect substances in astonishingly small quantities, and a dog?s nose far more capable. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 07:56:56 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 08:56:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A virtual Turing Church on the Moon in VR Message-ID: A virtual Turing Church on the Moon in VR I am starting a new VR project called Luna MUVE. Within Luna MUVE, I will build a virtual Turing Church. https://turingchurch.net/a-virtual-turing-church-on-the-moon-in-vr-876d5664917a -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 16:34:52 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:34:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:06 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that common men will do > absolutely everything to avoid appearing gay, in any way?* > But that just begs the question, why isn't flamboyance associated with hetrosexual masculinity in humans as it is in most other species? And why is the color pink particularly unmasculine? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 17:22:56 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:22:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 16, 2019, at 8:38 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:06 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > Maybe it has something to do with the fact that common men will do absolutely everything to avoid appearing gay, in any way? > > But that just begs the question, why isn't flamboyance associated with hetrosexual masculinity in humans as it is in most other species? And why is the color pink particularly unmasculine? Well, before 1900, pink wasn?t considered unmasculine or even feminine. See: https://jezebel.com/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys-5790638 I see much of this thread seems to be generalizing from people?s lives now, especially in the US. (was And it also seems that many males here are middle aged and probably not dressing metrosexually. Even in your own lives, haven?t you seen men?s fashion shift and change? Yeah, the pink thing seems locked in place for now, but I?m guessing adult straight men wearing leggings wasn?t a thing when you wear in college, right?) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 17:24:38 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:24:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <08502E6B-18A8-4F98-B276-717D1B987C7C@gmail.com> > But that just begs the question, why isn't flamboyance associated with hetrosexual masculinity in humans as it is in most other species? And why is the color pink particularly unmasculine? > > John K Clark I honestly think it?s 100% cultural. There are other cultures where men are still ?dandy? and where men will wear pink. SR Ballard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 17:57:15 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 09:57:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? Message-ID: ?On Dec 16, 2019, at 9:32 AM, SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: > ? >> But that just begs the question, why isn't flamboyance associated with hetrosexual masculinity in humans as it is in most other species? And why is the color pink particularly unmasculine? >> >> John K Clark > > I honestly think it?s 100% cultural. There are other cultures where men are still ?dandy? and where men will wear pink. That would be my guess too. One has only to look at fashion globally and historically to see that pink as an exclusively feminine color is not universal. In fact, as I pointed out in an earlier post, this is something that only came about around a century ago in the US. By the way, any decent book on gender will point this particular example out. For instance, Cordelia Fine?s 2010 _Delusions of Gender_, a book I?ve recommended here before, brings this up. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 18:56:06 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 12:56:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Look at PGA golf. Lots and lots of pink - because Arnold Palmer wore pink shirts a lot in the last few years of his life. bill On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:38 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 15, 2019 at 10:06 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> Maybe it has something to do with the fact that common men will do >> absolutely everything to avoid appearing gay, in any way?* >> > > But that just begs the question, why isn't flamboyance associated with > hetrosexual masculinity in humans as it is in most other species? And why > is the color pink particularly unmasculine? > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tara at taramayastales.com Mon Dec 16 19:00:33 2019 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 11:00:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the answer lies in the question: what do women want? Why would they need to compete with other women for the attention of men? Men compete for multiple short term partners, but women compete for long term investors (husbands). Among species where males invest in child care, the females can be both flamboyant and feisty. (Think sea horses.) In species where both partners contribute equal amounts, they are hard to tell apart. (Think penguins). In our species, women advertise fertility (beauty) and men advertise long term investment (status, wealth, property). To some extent, both men and women advertise the same features that make for good parents: intelligence, kindness and a sense of humor. Tara Maya > On Dec 15, 2019, at 2:35 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > From the antlers of elk to the plumage of birds to the coloration of fish, males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not true for our own species. When I Googled "business women's pant suit" I got images of women in hot pink > > Hot Pink > > And bright red > > Bright Red > > And vivid Yellow > > Vivid Yellow > > I can't imagine a male IBM executive showing up to a meeting in a hot pink suit even if he had a standard black tie. But why not? > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 19:44:01 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:44:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah I'll buy all of that, but what does a man's status have to do with suits and ties? And why the hell won't it change? One point: there are men who are just as concerned about having a monogamous relationship as many women. As a younger man, I was subjected to prejudice when I was not in the market for one night stands, which it was assumed I was (and they would not take NO for any answer!) bill w (glad to see you back, Tara) On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 1:39 PM Tara Maya via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I think the answer lies in the question: what do women want? Why would > they need to compete with other women for the attention of men? > > Men compete for multiple short term partners, but women compete for long > term investors (husbands). > > Among species where males invest in child care, the females can be both > flamboyant and feisty. (Think sea horses.) In species where both partners > contribute equal amounts, they are hard to tell apart. (Think penguins). In > our species, women advertise fertility (beauty) and men advertise long term > investment (status, wealth, property). To some extent, both men and women > advertise the same features that make for good parents: intelligence, > kindness and a sense of humor. > > Tara Maya > > > > > On Dec 15, 2019, at 2:35 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > From the antlers of elk to the plumage of birds to the coloration of fish, > males are almost always much more flamboyant than females, but it's not > true for our own species. When I Googled "business women's pant suit" I got > images of women in hot pink > > Hot Pink > > > And bright red > > Bright Red > > > > And vivid Yellow > > Vivid Yellow > > > I can't imagine a male IBM executive showing up to a meeting in a hot pink > suit even if he had a standard black tie. But why not? > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 16 21:01:52 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 13:01:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00e901d5b454$0b3394c0$219abe40$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? >?Yeah I'll buy all of that, but what does a man's status have to do with suits and ties? And why the hell won't it change? Because then, we would the hell need to buy new clothing. I have a wool business suit I had tailor made 30 years ago. It still fits great, still has plenty of wear left in it, still looks just as nerdy as it did when Bush Sr. was taking over for Reagan. That men?s style never changes much is a gift to those who like the way things are. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 22:09:53 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:09:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers Message-ID: Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite philosopher. I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness is an illusion and is a dualist. I would love to see the day when metaphysical explanations are entirely in the past, but probably won't. So - it's an illusion. Does that mean that I think I am seeing typed words on my laptop screen but actually I am not? In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement other than to get further away from the common person's understanding? ("Have to be esoteric or people will think we are full of shit." which possibly they are) bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 22:19:13 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 16:19:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] deja vu Message-ID: Have you noticed as you get older that you have deja vu experiences more often that you used to? It would make good sense if you did since you have more in memory. I haven't asked you before, have I? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 22:49:04 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:49:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:13 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite > philosopher. I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness > is an illusion* > The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be different if consciousness were NOT an illusion? > *and is a dualist.* > I'm not so interested in that, I'm not big into dangerous sports and know little about swords or pistols. *> In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' > are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal > consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement* They aren't. > *other than to get further away from the common person's understanding? > ("Have to be esoteric or people will think we are full of shit." which > possibly they are)* Of course they're full of shit that's why philosophers love to talk about consciousness but rarely talk about intelligence. It's really really hard to come up with a good intelligence theory and really easy to tell if it's full of shit or not, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to consciousness theories; it's easy for anybody to come up with one in two seconds because there are no facts it must fit, and therefore there is no way to prove the idea is full of shit which is a very good thing if you really are full of shit. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 23:54:16 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:54:16 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be different if consciousness were NOT an illusion john clark I think that's kinda my question. If it is an illusion, then what is the real thing? What is it that is being distorted? Many years ago I heard that philosophers had argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It was presented as a true story, which I really doubted at the time. Now I know that even if it were not a true story it could easily have been true. Perhaps it is philosophy itself is an illusion and what is being distorted is reality, which they cannot seem to admit exists. What a way to get tenure and a cushy job. bill w On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:52 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:13 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite >> philosopher. I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness >> is an illusion* >> > > The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be different > if consciousness were NOT an illusion? > > > *and is a dualist.* >> > > I'm not so interested in that, I'm not big into dangerous sports and know > little about swords or pistols. > > *> In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' >> are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal >> consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement* > > > They aren't. > > > *other than to get further away from the common person's >> understanding? ("Have to be esoteric or people will think we are full of >> shit." which possibly they are)* > > > Of course they're full of shit that's why philosophers love to talk about > consciousness but rarely talk about intelligence. It's really really hard > to come up with a good intelligence theory and really easy to tell if it's > full of shit or not, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to > consciousness theories; it's easy for anybody to come up with one in two > seconds because there are no facts it must fit, and therefore there is no > way to prove the idea is full of shit which is a very good thing if you > really are full of shit. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 00:10:22 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:10:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] some upbeat psych findings Message-ID: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2019/12/10/good-at-heart-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-better-side-of-humanity/ There's even a test to see just how far you have gong to the Dark Side. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbard at wisc.edu Tue Dec 17 00:14:17 2019 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 00:14:17 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Why are women's clothing so much more flamboyant than men's? Message-ID: ?On Dec 16, 2019, at 9:32 AM, SR Ballard wrote: > I honestly think it's 100% cultural. There are other cultures > where men are still "dandy" and where men will wear pink. This brings to mind an episode of Michael Palin's Sahara: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6egxjg Check out the men in the mating ritual about 10 minutes into the video. From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 00:16:18 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:16:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] some dismal facts about humans Message-ID: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/ My list of the worst things: 1 - the tendency of people to judge others and to judge issues quickly and in accurately 2 - the overgeneralization and over discrimination of the above conclusions 3 - all the unfortunate facts about our tendencies towards other cognitive errors 4 - the myth that we only use 10% of our minds actually seems rather accurate 5 - we only produce great results when we are pushed hard bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 00:33:10 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:33:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am a dualist but I don't think consciousness is an illusion. That's sort of a nebulous statement in any case. Like saying gravity is an illusion. Doesn't mean we don't have to deal with it. By the way I think it was I who said something akin to Chalmers being my favorite, but if he says consciousness is an illusion then I may have to rescind that. I can't find anything like that though so I would certainly appreciate a link to the article. I always thought he was anti-eliminativist. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be different > if consciousness were NOT an illusion john clark > > I think that's kinda my question. If it is an illusion, then what is the > real thing? What is it that is being distorted? Many years ago I heard > that philosophers had argued about how many angels could dance on the head > of a pin. It was presented as a true story, which I really doubted at the > time. Now I know that even if it were not a true story it could easily > have been true. Perhaps it is philosophy itself is an illusion and what is > being distorted is reality, which they cannot seem to admit exists. What a > way to get tenure and a cushy job. > > bill w > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:52 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:13 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > *Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite >>> philosopher. I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness >>> is an illusion* >>> >> >> The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be >> different if consciousness were NOT an illusion? >> >> > *and is a dualist.* >>> >> >> I'm not so interested in that, I'm not big into dangerous sports and know >> little about swords or pistols. >> >> *> In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' >>> are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal >>> consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement* >> >> >> They aren't. >> >> > *other than to get further away from the common person's >>> understanding? ("Have to be esoteric or people will think we are full of >>> shit." which possibly they are)* >> >> >> Of course they're full of shit that's why philosophers love to talk about >> consciousness but rarely talk about intelligence. It's really really hard >> to come up with a good intelligence theory and really easy to tell if it's >> full of shit or not, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to >> consciousness theories; it's easy for anybody to come up with one in two >> seconds because there are no facts it must fit, and therefore there is no >> way to prove the idea is full of shit which is a very good thing if you >> really are full of shit. >> >> 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 00:34:02 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 19:34:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Happy to see ExI posting about consciousness in any case! I almost made a post the other day about the Searle's Chinese Room; I'll finish it one of these days On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:33 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > I am a dualist but I don't think consciousness is an illusion. That's > sort of a nebulous statement in any case. Like saying gravity is an > illusion. Doesn't mean we don't have to deal with it. > > By the way I think it was I who said something akin to Chalmers being my > favorite, but if he says consciousness is an illusion then I may have to > rescind that. I can't find anything like that though so I would certainly > appreciate a link to the article. I always thought he was > anti-eliminativist. > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be >> different if consciousness were NOT an illusion john clark >> >> I think that's kinda my question. If it is an illusion, then what is the >> real thing? What is it that is being distorted? Many years ago I heard >> that philosophers had argued about how many angels could dance on the head >> of a pin. It was presented as a true story, which I really doubted at the >> time. Now I know that even if it were not a true story it could easily >> have been true. Perhaps it is philosophy itself is an illusion and what is >> being distorted is reality, which they cannot seem to admit exists. What a >> way to get tenure and a cushy job. >> >> bill w >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 4:52 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 5:13 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>> > *Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite >>>> philosopher. I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness >>>> is an illusion* >>>> >>> >>> The question I'd love to ask Mr.Chalmers is, how would things be >>> different if consciousness were NOT an illusion? >>> >>> > *and is a dualist.* >>>> >>> >>> I'm not so interested in that, I'm not big into dangerous sports and >>> know little about swords or pistols. >>> >>> *> In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and >>>> perception' are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and >>>> 'phenomenal consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement* >>> >>> >>> They aren't. >>> >>> > *other than to get further away from the common person's >>>> understanding? ("Have to be esoteric or people will think we are full of >>>> shit." which possibly they are)* >>> >>> >>> Of course they're full of shit that's why philosophers love to talk >>> about consciousness but rarely talk about intelligence. It's really really >>> hard to come up with a good intelligence theory and really easy to tell if >>> it's full of shit or not, but the exact opposite is true when it comes to >>> consciousness theories; it's easy for anybody to come up with one in two >>> seconds because there are no facts it must fit, and therefore there is no >>> way to prove the idea is full of shit which is a very good thing if you >>> really are full of shit. >>> >>> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 00:51:40 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 11:51:40 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 09:11, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite philosopher. > I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness is an illusion > and is a dualist. > > I would love to see the day when metaphysical explanations are entirely in > the past, but probably won't. > > So - it's an illusion. Does that mean that I think I am seeing typed > words on my laptop screen but actually I am not? > > In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' are > no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal > consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement other than to get > further away from the common person's understanding? ("Have to be esoteric > or people will think we are full of shit." which possibly they are) > Chalmers does not believe consciousness is an illusion. I went to a talk he gave where he discussed this as a rather odd idea. He is a property dualist, not a substance dualist, like Descartes. The idea that consciousness is an illusion comes from physicalists like Daniel Dennett, because they think the apparent dualistic aspect of consciousness is an illusion. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 17 01:02:10 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:02:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <015401d5b475$9d03c160$d70b4420$@rainier66.com> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >?So - it's an illusion. Does that mean that I think I am seeing typed words on my laptop screen but actually I am not? bill w BillW, anything any of us wrote in response to that question will show up as words on your laptop screen. So I suggest this: assume the statement true. Then reason thru the kinds of things we might write. Then assume the statement false, and reason the consequences if false. Then look at what people wrote in response, see which matches best, and you will have your answer, my son. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 17 01:21:21 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:21:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] some dismal facts about humans In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017201d5b478$4af011a0$e0d034e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 4:16 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] some dismal facts about humans https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/ My list of the worst things: 1 - the tendency of people to judge others and to judge issues quickly and in accurately 2 - the overgeneralization and over discrimination of the above conclusions 3 - all the unfortunate facts about our tendencies towards other cognitive errors 4 - the myth that we only use 10% of our minds actually seems rather accurate 5 - we only produce great results when we are pushed hard bill w BillW, your list of worst things is evidence that humanity has succeeded. Nowhere on your list is brutal attack by revenge-seeking natives, cholera, crop failure, locust plagues, that sorta thing. All of your list is way the heck up at the peak of Mazlow?s hierarchy, the self-actualization stuff. Life? is? gooooood? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 17 01:22:58 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:22:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017901d5b478$84717180$8d545480$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Chalmers >?Happy to see ExI posting about consciousness in any case! Will, can you really be sure that you saw an ExI post about consciousness? How? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 01:31:16 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:31:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 19:53 Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 09:11, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite philosopher. >> I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness is an illusion >> and is a dualist. >> >> I would love to see the day when metaphysical explanations are entirely >> in the past, but probably won't. >> >> So - it's an illusion. Does that mean that I think I am seeing typed >> words on my laptop screen but actually I am not? >> >> In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' >> are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal >> consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement other than to get >> further away from the common person's understanding? ("Have to be esoteric >> or people will think we are full of shit." which possibly they are) >> > > Chalmers does not believe consciousness is an illusion. I went to a talk > he gave where he discussed this as a rather odd idea. He is a property > dualist, not a substance dualist, like Descartes. The idea that > consciousness is an illusion comes from physicalists like Daniel Dennett, > because they think the apparent dualistic aspect of consciousness is an > illusion. > Ok, thought so. Dennett is my nemesis, George R. R. Martin lookin motherfucker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 01:58:29 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:58:29 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 12:45, Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019, 19:53 Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 09:11, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite >>> philosopher. I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness >>> is an illusion and is a dualist. >>> >>> I would love to see the day when metaphysical explanations are entirely >>> in the past, but probably won't. >>> >>> So - it's an illusion. Does that mean that I think I am seeing typed >>> words on my laptop screen but actually I am not? >>> >>> In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' >>> are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal >>> consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement other than to get >>> further away from the common person's understanding? ("Have to be esoteric >>> or people will think we are full of shit." which possibly they are) >>> >> >> Chalmers does not believe consciousness is an illusion. I went to a talk >> he gave where he discussed this as a rather odd idea. He is a property >> dualist, not a substance dualist, like Descartes. The idea that >> consciousness is an illusion comes from physicalists like Daniel Dennett, >> because they think the apparent dualistic aspect of consciousness is an >> illusion. >> > > Ok, thought so. Dennett is my nemesis, George R. R. Martin looking > motherfucker > His most important work, in my opinion, is this paper, which proves that computers can be conscious: http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 02:01:28 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 18:01:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Monday, December 16, 2019, 02:18:41 PM PST, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: Someone in an earlier post, said that he was their favorite philosopher. I see in a recent Aeon article that he thinks consciousness is an illusion and is a dualist. Actually, Chalmers is a dualist (though a properties one and not a substance one), and that almost has to entail that he doesn't believe consciousness is an illusion. The best known philosophers know who believe (how I don't know) consciousness is an illusion are Paul Churchland and Daniel Dennett. Of course, I'm going by what I've read years ago, so maybe Chalmers has changed his mind. (IIRC, the late Jaegwon Kim was a physicalist (oversimplifying: mind can be reduced matter or to physical processes), but latter became a dualist (oversimplifying: mind can't be reduced to matter or to physical processes). I've heard told that in philosophy of mind circles, this isn't unusual: quite a few people who going from being dualists to physicalists or vice versa.) Maybe you could share a link to the article to clear this up. I would love to see the day when metaphysical explanations are entirely in the past, but probably won't. What exactly do you mean by a "metaphysical explanation" here? There already was a sort of death of metaphysics phase in philosophy. All this really meant was avoiding metaphysical questions (questions about the nature of being and first principles) and presuming a certain metaphysical stance. (The usual thing is when someone believes metaphysical inquiries and ideas are somehow bad or nonsensical is that they're usually holding a very strict set of metaphysical beliefs they don't want to have challenged -- usually, unwittingly. Thus, many logical positivists did hold metaphysical views: views about the basic nature of reality, about what constituted a fact, etc.) So - it's an illusion. Does that mean that I think I am seeing typed words on my laptop screen but actually I am not? I do think the general stance of consciousness as an illusion falls prey to this kind of self-referential problem. So does radical skepticism and view like "there is no self." In the same article it seems that the terms 'sensation and perception' are no longer used, in favor of 'access consciousness' and 'phenomenal consciousness'. How are these terms any improvement other than to get further away from the common person's understanding? ("Have to be esoteric or people will think we are full of shit." which possibly they are) That's not exactly how the terms are used. Access consciousness (A-consciousness) means stuff you're aware of. You have access to this, including introspection. It can be things like your awareness of a book on a table and it can also be awareness of a process of reasoning or of recalling a memory. Phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness) is the "what it's like" of particular acts of consciousness -- e.g., what stubbing your toe feels like and what the sound of a screeching tire sounds like (how these things differ from each in a phenomenal way). You might look at as A-consciousness is about what you're aware of -- usually immediately aware of and what you're attending to -- and P-consciousness is how you're aware of it. Ned Block introduced the distinction and I hope I'm not mangling it. Also, often the problem in any discipline is coming up with new terms to avoid confusion or to elucidate a distinction that isn't already found in ordinary language. It's not always about some attempt to sound important or technical. To be sure, that does happen, but I wouldn't run to that as the explanation for things like Ned Block's above terms. Also, like any other discipline -- formal logic, topology, quantum field theory -- not everything can be clearly understood by people who aren't willing to put in the effort. You can't always look for fast food answers here. If you want to avoid asking gourmet questions, then forget about anything but the introductory level stuff, and even then you're going to get oversimplified answers. Presumably, you don't want that. But then you might have to go to places like reading a decent book on philosophy of mind or browsing through the SEP: https://philosophy.stanford.edu/research/stanford-philosophy-online 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 Dec 17 02:35:09 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:35:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] link Message-ID: Here is the article that mentions Chalmers. The feed I get is from Aeon and they often have articles I want to read - various subjects. bill w https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-neither-a-spooky-mystery-nor-an-illusory-belief?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=december_drive_2019 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 02:59:23 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:59:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, "consciousness is an illusion" is nonsense. The word illusion presupposes an object of the illusion. That object is the consicousness. Illusion is qualia! As for the A- and P- distinction, I thought we just called A- 'self-consciousness' and P- 'consciousness'. Self-consciousness isn't that much of a hard problem in my opinion. That's just Hofstadter's strange loop. Brain making maps of itself. Recursion etc. Turtles perhaps not all the way down but enough to make a perception of oneself. The P- is hard because it is apparently irreducible. It seems unlike any other substance or action in physics so in my opinion the only solution is to open up physics to accommodate qualia. Whether you would call this 'dualism'--do we call it dualism when the standard model is split between fermions and bosons, when fermions are split between quarks and leptons? No, so maybe I am not a dualist. There is one model. It just happens to include consciousness. Perhaps it is affiliated with only certain aspects of the universe that we already know, like force carriage. Perhaps it is affiliated with dark matter, which I think is more likely than some think. I dunno, but it's definitely not emergent from anything we know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 04:02:05 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 21:02:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yay, someone brought up the consciousness topic!! Thanks You. On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Yes, "consciousness is an illusion" is nonsense. The word illusion > presupposes an object of the illusion. That object is the consciousness. > Illusion is qualia! > Exactly, I couldn?t have said it better . Nobody can deny Qualia. All good theories of consciousness must include them, and there is growing evidence that all experts agree with this in ?Representational Qualia Theory ?. No other theory has any significant amount of support. Even Dennett?s current ?Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory ? is now a supporting sub camp to ?Representational Qualia Theory ?. This defines consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities in the brain we are directly aware of like redness and greenness. If you are consciously aware of something, there must be something physical that is that knowledge, and this knowledge must be computationally bound to the rest of your current conscious knowledge. Qualia are physical qualities, and they can ?causally interact with measuring devices?. But since the physics that interact with our senses aren?t anything like the target of perception, all forms of causal perception require the correct qualitative interpretation to observe a target?s physical quality. You can?t know what the word ?red? means, without a physical definition. We don?t ?perceive? redness, rudeness is the physical quality that is the final result of perception. You can?t now the physical quality of anything without experiencing it directly, subjectively, in the brain. The physical redness we experience directly is the definition of the word ?red?. We need to distinguish between reality and knowledge of reality. Physicists can describe everything about physics, they just can?t tell us the physical quality any of their descriptions are describing. Physics, today, is all qualia blind. None of it defines ?redness?. Stathis has praise for Chalmers? Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia but in my opinion this ?neural substitution? argument (copied from Hans Moravec?s book ?Mind Children? published 8 years before this paper) has done as much damage to the philosophy of mind as ?Naive Realism?. Once you understand that consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities, the fallacy in the argument becomes obvious. The bottom line is there is no ?hard mind body problem? it?s just a color problem. We simply don?t yet know the qualitative color of anything, other than the physics (whatever this physics may be from Functionalism , to Materialism , to Quantum , to dualism ?) we directly experience subjectively. Once experimentalists stop being qualia blind, they will finally be able to objectively discover which of all their descriptions of physics are a description of redness, falsifying all be THE ONE true theory. Knowing the qualitative physical color of things will close the last ?god? (or ghosts) of the gaps. We just need more people to support ?Representational Qualia Theory ?, or one of it?s supporting sub camps (like signing a petition) so the experimentalists (and all the ?peer reviewers? who continue to reject any papers on this) will finally get the message about ?qualia blindness?. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 16:55:10 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 08:55:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] link In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <975C2C6F-189E-47CA-B8D8-D76C8113F975@gmail.com> Thanks! But note that that article doesn?t say Chalmers is an ?illusionist,? and further makes a dichotomy between dualists and illusionists. It even brings up distinctions between two major types of dualism: substance dualism and properties dualism. You must?ve confused Chalmers with Dennett here. (No big deal, but since others ran with it on this list, it?s maybe led to confusion over what Chalmers actual views are.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:37 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Here is the article that mentions Chalmers. The feed I get is from Aeon and they often have articles I want to read - various subjects. bill w > > https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-neither-a-spooky-mystery-nor-an-illusory-belief?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=december_drive_2019 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 17:32:10 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:32:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] link In-Reply-To: <975C2C6F-189E-47CA-B8D8-D76C8113F975@gmail.com> References: <975C2C6F-189E-47CA-B8D8-D76C8113F975@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, my google news feed showed me this article last week. I had an e-mail conversation with Keith Frankish back in 2012. He has obviously improved his understanding since then. This article is a classic illustration of the way traditional philosophy fails. This is just one guy?s ideas and classification of the how everyone else thinks, described in his own unique terminology. He uses the old traditional terms like ?access consciousness? and ?phenomenal consciousness?, causing us so much confusion. Everyone collaborating on Canonizer has now agreed on the much more descriptive terminology of ?computational binding? (required to give one ?access" to knowledge) and qualia, which are the physics that have the ?phenomenal? qualities. This article opens with: ?These days it is highly fashionable to label consciousness an ?illusion?.? This is similar to the way ?Naive Realism? is also ?fashionable?. These kinds of mistaken ideas easily resonate in people?s noncritical ideological bubbles of awareness. But when you canonize things, where you have rigorous measures of input from both sides, these kinds of mistakes self-sensor. None of them have been canonized, even though anyone could do so, and despite my repeated attempts to get people spouting these mistakes to canonize them. This article classifies everything on two ?horns? of a ?fundamental divide?, the scientific and anti-scientific. Then he labels all people on the scientific side as ?illusionists? and all people on the other side as ?dualists?, resulting in the confusion Dan has pointed out. You can see a more complex, definitive, rigorous and real time classification of all beliefs in the camp tree dendrogram in the ?Theories of Consciousness ? topic. As you can see, though it is a minority camp, there are some very smart people pointing out that ?Substance Dualism ? hasn?t yet been falsified. These dualists have put this camp in a supporting sub camp of the ?Approachable Via Science ? super camp, so they are not anti-science. Penrose and Hemeroff?s ?Orchestrated Object Reduction ? theory is a clear example of a phenomenalist camp that is not a ?dualist? camp since it is a supporting sub camp of ?Monism .? On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:57 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Thanks! But note that that article doesn?t say Chalmers is an > ?illusionist,? and further makes a dichotomy between dualists and > illusionists. It even brings up distinctions between two major types of > dualism: substance dualism and properties dualism. You must?ve confused > Chalmers with Dennett here. (No big deal, but since others ran with it on > this list, it?s maybe led to confusion over what Chalmers actual views are.) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books at: > > http://author.to/DanUst > > On Dec 16, 2019, at 6:37 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Here is the article that mentions Chalmers. The feed I get is from Aeon > and they often have articles I want to read - various subjects. bill w > > > https://aeon.co/essays/consciousness-is-neither-a-spooky-mystery-nor-an-illusory-belief?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=december_drive_2019 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Dec 17 18:13:50 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:13:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness Message-ID: What irks me about science is the renaming of concepts where we have perfectly good names that have lasted, in some cases, hundreds of years. I do admit that psychology is probably the worst. At first the new name can be impressive, but later when you learn that it's the same old same old concept, it makes you look at the coiner as ripping us off and being a phony. Of course the coiner wants to make a name for himself. And it makes searching more difficult. If access consciousness is really sensation, will both show up in a search? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 18:21:16 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:21:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Except that as Ned Block and others use the term ?access consciousness? isn?t a synonym for ?sensation.? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 17, 2019, at 10:16 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > What irks me about science is the renaming of concepts where we have perfectly good names that have lasted, in some cases, hundreds of years. > > I do admit that psychology is probably the worst. At first the new name can be impressive, but later when you learn that it's the same old same old concept, it makes you look at the coiner as ripping us off and being a phony. Of course the coiner wants to make a name for himself. > > And it makes searching more difficult. If access consciousness is really sensation, will both show up in a search? > > bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Dec 17 18:37:58 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:37:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <011e01d5b509$1b4b9910$51e2cb30$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] access consciousness What irks me about science is the renaming of concepts where we have perfectly good names that have lasted, in some cases, hundreds of years. I do admit that psychology is probably the worst. At first the new name can be impressive, but later when you learn that it's the same old same old concept, it makes you look at the coiner as ripping us off and being a phony. Of course the coiner wants to make a name for himself?bill w I propose we call BillW?s concept by the name neonominology. My name is spike and I approved this message. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 20:47:45 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:47:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:16 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What irks me about science is the renaming of concepts where we have > perfectly good names that have lasted, in some cases, hundreds of years. > My pet peeve is the move to change the term for a smart computer from AI to AGI. Everybody knows what AI means but if somebody uses a unfamiliar term like AGI you may think they're talking about Adjusted Gross Income and become hopelessly confused and wonder what the hell that has to do with the future of computing. And your confusion makes them feel smarter. Whenever a technical term becomes well known there is always a tendency to dream up a more pompous one, just look at all the Latin slang lawyers love to use. If Steven Spielberg had made a movie called AGI I think there would now be a movement to change AGI to AI because then too many people would know what AGI meant. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 21:57:07 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:57:07 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 15:04, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Yay, someone brought up the consciousness topic!! Thanks You. > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Yes, "consciousness is an illusion" is nonsense. The word illusion >> presupposes an object of the illusion. That object is the consciousness. >> Illusion is qualia! >> > > Exactly, I couldn?t have said it better > . > Nobody can deny Qualia. All good theories of consciousness must include > them, and there is growing evidence that all experts agree with this in ?Representational > Qualia Theory ?. > No other theory has any significant amount of support. Even Dennett?s > current ?Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory > ? is now a > supporting sub camp to ?Representational Qualia Theory > ?. This > defines consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities > in the brain we are directly aware of like redness and greenness. If you > are consciously aware of something, there must be something physical that > is that knowledge, and this knowledge must be computationally bound to the > rest of your current conscious knowledge. > > > > Qualia are physical qualities, and they can ?causally interact with > measuring devices?. But since the physics that interact with our senses > aren?t anything like the target of perception, all forms of causal > perception require the correct qualitative interpretation to observe a > target?s physical quality. You can?t know what the word ?red? means, > without a physical definition. We don?t ?perceive? redness, rudeness is > the physical quality that is the final result of perception. You can?t now > the physical quality of anything without experiencing it directly, > subjectively, in the brain. The physical redness we experience directly is > the definition of the word ?red?. We need to distinguish between reality > and knowledge of reality. Physicists can describe everything about > physics, they just can?t tell us the physical quality any of their > descriptions are describing. Physics, today, is all qualia blind. None of > it defines ?redness?. > > > > Stathis has praise for Chalmers? Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing > Qualia but in my opinion this > ?neural substitution? argument (copied from Hans Moravec?s book ?Mind > Children? published 8 years before this paper) has done as much damage to > the philosophy of mind as ?Naive Realism?. Once you understand that > consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities, the fallacy > in the argument > > becomes obvious. > Chalmers did not develop the neural substitution thought experiment, but in the cited paper he assumed that neural substitution did not preserve consciousness, as you also claim, and showed that if this were so it would lead to absurdity. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 22:10:19 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:10:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, Very interesting. It?s been a long time since I?ve read this. I do not recall this. I?ll have to do some review work. Thanks for pointing this out. I was mainly pointing out that many people refer to or think of this paper, as the source of the substitution argument. But in that paper, he does argue, and he points out that he believes functionalism is the more likely theory, because of the substitution argument right? On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 2:58 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Dec 2019 at 15:04, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Yay, someone brought up the consciousness topic!! Thanks You. >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 8:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Yes, "consciousness is an illusion" is nonsense. The word illusion >>> presupposes an object of the illusion. That object is the consciousness. >>> Illusion is qualia! >>> >> >> Exactly, I couldn?t have said it better >> . >> Nobody can deny Qualia. All good theories of consciousness must include >> them, and there is growing evidence that all experts agree with this in ?Representational >> Qualia Theory ?. >> No other theory has any significant amount of support. Even Dennett?s >> current ?Predictive Bayesian Coding Theory >> ? is now a >> supporting sub camp to ?Representational Qualia Theory >> ?. This >> defines consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities >> in the brain we are directly aware of like redness and greenness. If you >> are consciously aware of something, there must be something physical that >> is that knowledge, and this knowledge must be computationally bound to the >> rest of your current conscious knowledge. >> >> >> >> Qualia are physical qualities, and they can ?causally interact with >> measuring devices?. But since the physics that interact with our senses >> aren?t anything like the target of perception, all forms of causal >> perception require the correct qualitative interpretation to observe a >> target?s physical quality. You can?t know what the word ?red? means, >> without a physical definition. We don?t ?perceive? redness, rudeness is >> the physical quality that is the final result of perception. You can?t now >> the physical quality of anything without experiencing it directly, >> subjectively, in the brain. The physical redness we experience directly is >> the definition of the word ?red?. We need to distinguish between reality >> and knowledge of reality. Physicists can describe everything about >> physics, they just can?t tell us the physical quality any of their >> descriptions are describing. Physics, today, is all qualia blind. None of >> it defines ?redness?. >> >> >> >> Stathis has praise for Chalmers? Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing >> Qualia but in my opinion this >> ?neural substitution? argument (copied from Hans Moravec?s book ?Mind >> Children? published 8 years before this paper) has done as much damage to >> the philosophy of mind as ?Naive Realism?. Once you understand that >> consciousness is computationally bound elemental physical qualities, the fallacy >> in the argument >> >> becomes obvious. >> > > Chalmers did not develop the neural substitution thought experiment, but > in the cited paper he assumed that neural substitution did not preserve > consciousness, as you also claim, and showed that if this were so it would > lead to absurdity. > >> -- > 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 msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 22:29:18 2019 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 17:29:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 3:51 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > My pet peeve is the move to change the term for a smart computer from AI > to AGI. Everybody knows what AI means but if somebody uses a unfamiliar > term like AGI you may think they're talking about Adjusted Gross Income and > become hopelessly confused and wonder what the hell that has to do with the > future of computing. > You're still on about that? This is silly as arguing they shouldn't be called "devices" because they're already called "phones" (or "cell phones" for those dinosaurs) - yeah, they're in the same family but the distinction evolved because there is some nuance the old moniker fails to capture. In the phone/ device example you probably didn't have a browser or games/apps on your "flip phone" but those are assumed features of your "device" (which also includes tablets/etc/ whatever) You are also smart enough to use context to know machine learning nerds aren't discussing Adjusted Gross Income. Even if you aren't familiar with an acronym, you can educate yourself on the meaning and context in far less effort than it takes to contain about how one word has always been sufficient for your discussion on the topic so there is no need to adopt new. Now, you did refer to it as a peeve so maybe you don't feel as strongly about it as all that... but I've often wondered why you dig your heels in there and not in so many other language developments in other domains. *shrug* y'know? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 22:32:43 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 15:32:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All good points about ?access consciousness? vs ?sensation? and ?AI? vs ?AGI?. That?s why at Canonizer.com we always work to build and track the current consensus around the best terms to use, and we use whatever that is. Also, many terms like ?red? and ?access? are problematic because they are ambiguous. You can?t tell if ?red? is a label for the physical properties of a target of perception, like a strawberry, or knowledge of the same, the final result of perception. So, we define two words: ?red? for the initial and ?redness? for the final. Currently AI is very narrow, not general. So, in at least in some cases, you need two words so one can distinguish between these two. Finally, with Access, you can?t tell if Ned Block or others are talking about having immediate conscious awareness access to something, like redness, as a quality of knowledge of a strawberry. Or are they referring to any of the near infinite memories and things like ?red is a warm color?, and the name ?red, or anything else one has ?access? to. You obviously aren?t thinking of all of these at once, though you have access to, or an ability to bring them all into the phenomenal computationally bound CPU system that is conscious awareness. On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:30 PM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 3:51 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> My pet peeve is the move to change the term for a smart computer from AI >> to AGI. Everybody knows what AI means but if somebody uses a unfamiliar >> term like AGI you may think they're talking about Adjusted Gross Income and >> become hopelessly confused and wonder what the hell that has to do with the >> future of computing. >> > > You're still on about that? > > This is silly as arguing they shouldn't be called "devices" because > they're already called "phones" (or "cell phones" for those dinosaurs) - > yeah, they're in the same family but the distinction evolved because there > is some nuance the old moniker fails to capture. In the phone/ device > example you probably didn't have a browser or games/apps on your "flip > phone" but those are assumed features of your "device" (which also includes > tablets/etc/ whatever) > > You are also smart enough to use context to know machine learning nerds > aren't discussing Adjusted Gross Income. Even if you aren't familiar with > an acronym, you can educate yourself on the meaning and context in far > less effort than it takes to contain about how one word has always been > sufficient for your discussion on the topic so there is no need to adopt > new. > > Now, you did refer to it as a peeve so maybe you don't feel as strongly > about it as all that... but I've often wondered why you dig your heels in > there and not in so many other language developments in other domains. > *shrug* y'know? > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 11:20:38 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 06:20:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:32 PM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 3:51 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> My pet peeve is the move to change the term for a smart computer from AI >> to AGI. Everybody knows what AI means but if somebody uses a unfamiliar >> term like AGI you may think they're talking about Adjusted Gross Income and >> become hopelessly confused and wonder what the hell that has to do with the >> future of computing. >> > > *> You're still on about that?* > Yes because I can see no rational reason for changing AI to AGI, it won't advance the field and it certainly won't bring more clarity to any discussion about smart computers, all it will do is impress the rubes with a fancy new acronym. > *Even if you aren't familiar with an acronym, you can educate yourself > on the meaning* > Sure I can educate myself with all the pompous acronyms that have recently become fashionable as names for things that have been well known for decades or centuries, but the time I spend in doing that is time not spent educating myself about more important things, stuff that matters in the real world. > * >I've often wondered why you dig your heels in there and not in so many > other language developments in other domains. *shrug* y'know?* > I don't much care if teenagers invent new slang to describe a recent tubular (is that word still in fashion?) reality show, but I expect more from computer scientists. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 11:37:37 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 06:37:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] access consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 5:39 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *> Currently AI is very narrow, not general. * > I wouldn't call a computer program that starts with zero knowledge and in less than a day teaches itself to play Checkers, Chess, GO and Shogi at a superhuman level "very narrow"; narrow perhaps but not very. > *So, in at least in some cases, you need two words so one can distinguish > between these two.* > So AGI is stuff that AI can't do *YET*, and that means the definition of AGI changes every month if not every day. There is no way that can cause a increase in overall clarity. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 12:45:29 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:45:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter Message-ID: The presidents 6 page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained 6 errors of objective fact, 9 misleading statements, and 5 exaggerations. Other than that it was just fine: President's letter to Pelosi protesting impeachment John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 13:59:09 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 06:59:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Statish, My prediction is that very soon after experimentalists start doing observation of the physics in the brain in a non-qualia blind way, they will discover which of all their descriptions of physics are a description of redness. This will also include the discovery of how computational binding of redness and greenness is physically achieved. This will falsify functionalism, as nobody will ever be able to produce a redness experience, in a substrate independent way, and it will never be possible to do computational binding on any such functional redness and greenness, as required to have composite qualitative conscious experiences. Your way of thinking is both not falsifiable and not verifiable, resulting in the impossibly hard problems Chalmers has become famous four claiming exist. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Brent Allsop Date: Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] Chalmers To: Stathis Papaioannou This statement is only true (and consciousness becomes impossibly hard to approach via science because nothing is verifiable or falsifiable) when you do a neural substitution on a system that does not include the necessary ?computational binding? functionality. It is not possible for a neural system, as described in the substitution argument, to have a composite qualitative experience that includes composite awareness of both redness and greenness at the same time. If you can describe to me how any such system you are doing a neural substitution on can achieve this functionality, other than ?a miracle happens here? I will jump camps from a materialist to a functionalist. If you provide this necessary functionality, all the so called impossibly hard problems of consciousness Chalmers has become famous for claiming exist are easily resolved as a simple color problem. On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:12 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 09:39, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> But if the argument contains a mistake of logic or slight of hand >> , >> then this argument for functionalism is falsified, resulting in it being >> more likely that functionalism IS probably wrong? >> > > If functionalism is wrong then it means that your qualia could change > radically and you wouldn?t notice, which seems absurd. > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 18 15:14:29 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:14:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c101d5b5b5$d85c8df0$8915a9d0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] The president's letter >?The presidents 6 page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained?John K Clark John you were doing so well. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbard at wisc.edu Wed Dec 18 15:30:09 2019 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:30:09 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter Message-ID: > The presidents 6 page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained 6 > errors of objective fact, 9 misleading statements, and 5 exaggerations. And partridge in a pear tree Merry Christmas! From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 18 15:38:18 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:38:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00eb01d5b5b9$2c0722a0$841567e0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- > On Behalf Of Bill Hibbard via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] The president's letter > The presidents 6 page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained 6 > errors of objective fact, 9 misleading statements, and 5 exaggerations. And partridge in a pear tree Merry Christmas! _______________________________________________ What is this term you use "Christmas"? Do define please. pike From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 18 15:48:43 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 07:48:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ed01d5b5ba$a0dc6300$e2952900$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Bill Hibbard via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] The president's letter > The presidents 6 page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained 6 > errors of objective fact, 9 misleading statements, and 5 exaggerations. And partridge in a pear tree Merry Christmas! _______________________________________________ Bill suppose we go along with the notion and even grudgingly admit we understand what you really mean with the term "Christmas." What does it really mean to be "merry"? How can we even know when we are being merry? Perhaps the whole notion of merry is really just a state of mind, or an illusion of consciousness. Eh... well, retract, of course merry is a state of mind. What I really want to know is when we are being merry, do you mean more merry that our usual state of merriness? Or if we are persistently and inexplicably merry the rest of the time, is there a practical known limit to merriness that one may not exceed, kinda like the velocity c? If we call that limit m, and the usual merriness level is about 0.5m, are you suggesting we temporarily adjust that to some higher value, say .6m? At what level of m does one begin to resemble a drunken frat bro? And if the level of m is adjustable by the user, why don't we just set it higher always? And if we set m higher, can we do so without being conscious of the fact that it is really just artificial m? The mind boggles. spike From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 15:52:18 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:52:18 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Far Side Returns Message-ID: Starting yesterday showing a selection of "odd" funny cartoons. They don't appear to have an email list or RSS feed (yet) so you need to save a bookmark and visit everyday. https://www.thefarside.com/ BillK From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 15:59:40 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:59:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter In-Reply-To: <00ed01d5b5ba$a0dc6300$e2952900$@rainier66.com> References: <00ed01d5b5ba$a0dc6300$e2952900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:51, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Bill suppose we go along with the notion and even grudgingly admit we > understand what you really mean with the term "Christmas." What does it > really mean to be "merry"? How can we even know when we are being merry? > Perhaps the whole notion of merry is really just a state of mind, or an > illusion of consciousness. > > Eh... well, retract, of course merry is a state of mind. What I really want > to know is when we are being merry, do you mean more merry that our usual > state of merriness? Or if we are persistently and inexplicably merry the > rest of the time, is there a practical known limit to merriness that one may > not exceed, kinda like the velocity c? If we call that limit m, and the > usual merriness level is about 0.5m, are you suggesting we temporarily > adjust that to some higher value, say .6m? > I asked Grandma what "merry" means and she replied that based on her many years experience, it's two glasses of sherry. (And it rhymes!). BillK From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 18 16:19:46 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 08:19:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter In-Reply-To: References: <00ed01d5b5ba$a0dc6300$e2952900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <010501d5b5be$f6ea6db0$e4bf4910$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat >> are you suggesting we temporarily adjust that to some higher value, say .6m? >...I asked Grandma what "merry" means and she replied that based on her many years experience, it's two glasses of sherry. (And it rhymes!). BillK _______________________________________________ Sure, but now we are talking about chemically-induced merriness. Since the whole notion of alcohol messes with our fundamental inquiry into the nature of consciousness, we must reassess the nature of the whole merry qualium. spike From hibbard at wisc.edu Wed Dec 18 16:21:28 2019 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:21:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter In-Reply-To: <00ed01d5b5ba$a0dc6300$e2952900$@rainier66.com> References: <00ed01d5b5ba$a0dc6300$e2952900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Merry Christmas Spike! And a happy, healthy 2020! Perhaps you are old enough that hearing Christmas music this time of year gives you a warm feeling? It does for me. I also get a warm feeling from the hefty checks I send to my nieces and nephew, although none of them has a son named Tiny Tim. > The mind boggles. Exactly. Technological change is disrupting society and making the whole world crazy. Where politics are relatively free both the left and the right are increasingly nuts. In China, and other places, they are trying to avoid craziness by locking their societies down tight. We may follow China down that path. Meanwhile, do what you can and Merry Christmas! On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, spike at rainier66.com wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Bill Hibbard via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] The president's letter > >> The presidents 6 page letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi contained 6 >> errors of objective fact, 9 misleading statements, and 5 exaggerations. > > And partridge in a pear tree > > Merry Christmas! > > _______________________________________________ > > > Bill suppose we go along with the notion and even grudgingly admit we > understand what you really mean with the term "Christmas." What does it > really mean to be "merry"? How can we even know when we are being merry? > Perhaps the whole notion of merry is really just a state of mind, or an > illusion of consciousness. > > Eh... well, retract, of course merry is a state of mind. What I really want > to know is when we are being merry, do you mean more merry that our usual > state of merriness? Or if we are persistently and inexplicably merry the > rest of the time, is there a practical known limit to merriness that one may > not exceed, kinda like the velocity c? If we call that limit m, and the > usual merriness level is about 0.5m, are you suggesting we temporarily > adjust that to some higher value, say .6m? > > At what level of m does one begin to resemble a drunken frat bro? > > And if the level of m is adjustable by the user, why don't we just set it > higher always? > > And if we set m higher, can we do so without being conscious of the fact > that it is really just artificial m? > > The mind boggles. > > spike > > From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 16:39:47 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 10:39:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Far Side Returns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:01 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Starting yesterday showing a selection of "odd" funny cartoons. > They don't appear to have an email list or RSS feed (yet) so you need > to save a bookmark and visit everyday. > > https://www.thefarside.com/ > > BillK > Ah, just go ahead and buy the complete set. These are not new ones. bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 16:49:19 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:49:19 +0000 Subject: [ExI] The Far Side Returns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:43, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Ah, just go ahead and buy the complete set. These are not new ones. bill w >> >> _______________________________________________ Thanks, I know. He explains that this is a warm-up for new cartoons appearing in 2020. (And I haven't seen all of these old ones). :) https://www.thefarside.com/about BillK From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 17:19:26 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:19:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The president's letter In-Reply-To: References: <00ed01d5b5ba$a0dc6300$e2952900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Out with merry, in with mirthful! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 18 17:35:22 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:35:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] merry christmas! was: RE: The president's letter Message-ID: <012c01d5b5c9$86f00af0$94d020d0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Bill Hibbard >...Merry Christmas Spike! And a happy, healthy 2020!... Meanwhile, do what you can and Merry Christmas!... Thanks Bill! Very much the same to you sir. I will put aside the overly introspective questions on the nature of "merry" and offer a perspective of our world today. Technological change is disrupting our world on many levels. One of our own former ExI posters, Julian Assange was pointing out 20 years ago in this forum that government power is enabled by secrecy, and that if the secrets were exposed corruption would be forced out. We are compelled to admit he has a valid point. It is becoming ever clearer the man was right on the money. China is locking down their societies (or attempting to.) But information wants to be free. The Chinese people can see what the Hong Kong people have, and they want that. Rather than trying to give that to a billion people, China's strategy is to stop the Chinese people from seeing what the Hong Kong people have. An alternative would be to take away the freedoms and material wealth the Hong Kong people have. I am very optimistic in the near-term outlook for China, for I suspect that once the genie of freedom is out of the bottle, the commies will be unable to stuff him back in. Anyone who is into astronomy can scarcely fail to be merry in our times. Those LIGO results continue to stream in and they seldom fail to amaze. Then that crazy weird 70 solar mass black hole, discovered right here in our own galaxy, by the Chinese of all things. How crazy is that? They discovered that black hole without even government command. How can a 70 solar mass black hole have formed in this neighborhood? Medical technology marches on as it always has, but a most promising trend which has been steadily increasing for decades is the patient's access to his own test results. Any patient enabled with the understanding of how to access information has such a powerful tool set in gaining and maintaining health. A week ago today I landed in the hospital for the first time in my (long) life with a lung infection. The experience was most educational. Details available on request. The medics tell me I will live. My contact with young people fills me with both hope and fear on many levels. I commented earlier on Maslow's Hierarchy. When I was the age my Science Olympians are now, my peers and I were thinking of what menial job we might be able to land and our aspirations to break 3 dollars an hour, that sort of thing, down in the safety and comfort range. None of these young people, growing up in an ordinary middle-class setting, is anywhere other than right up at the top, diving deep on self-actualization. Think about how difficult it must me for them. They can't get any self-actualization from having climbed up that ladder, managing to escape dangerous neighborhoods and poverty. These poor souls don't even know they started at the top of Mazlow's Hierarchy! At the same time, some of them know not where their next meal is coming from. They might cruise Luigi's for pizza or the Outrageous Burrito, or of their posse so decides, they might end up at one of the old reliable standards such as Burger King or Taco Bell. Some are so poverty-stricken, they might be compelled to just go home and raid the refrigerator, unable to afford even basic sushi. They don't know where that next meal is coming from. Pitiful souls they are. But they are damn good at putting together a counterfeit science project on short notice. They know how to make those look really good, in just a coupla hours, completely devoid of any actual understanding of the topic at hand, but still look great doing it. I am thankful in a way for living when I do and being in the front row for the coming spectacle in the 2020 summer games, as our societies follow the logical path and recognize we could have easily anticipated male athletes vaguely pretending to be transgender, showing up wanting to compete in women's weightlifting, track, cycling etc. I don't know how that is going to play out, but I shall enjoy watching them struggle with the question. I do feel deep pity for those who must convince others how bad it all is. If their jobs require this for some reason, such as aspiring revolutionaries, it must be so frustrating to find that every oppressed faceless mass thinks he is going to be a millionaire. Even more frustrating to the revolutionary is knowing that many of these oppressed fools damn well might do so, in spite of the unfairness of it all. They are too stupid to be unhappy! Life must be so hard for revolutionaries today, with society all around them crushed by grinding prosperity. I do wish all of you the merriest of Christmas seasons. May your m approach 1 and stay there as long as necessary to provide sufficient contrast next Christmas season when it must be again increased even artificially be chemical means. May my Extropian friends and their families enjoy a prosperous and healthy 2020. spike From atymes at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 17:36:10 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 09:36:10 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Merry Newtonmas Message-ID: > Merry Christmas So, whatever happened to Newtonmas? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 18:58:09 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 12:58:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Merry Newtonmas In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Merry Christmas > > So, whatever happened to Newtonmas? > We of Northern genes think of the people who celebrated winter festival. It was the start of Winter, of cold and not much fire, of stretching food out in hopes of living to Spring, of digging graves in the Northern parts where the ground froze so as not to leave corpses until Spring, of the courage of those who will brave the winter conditions. They were celebrating making it this far and hoping for more. It was a mixture of hope and grimness. The last hurrah for many - a Spring they would never see. We came from a long line of hope and patience and bravery and stalwartness. Here's to them. Thank you. bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 19:07:46 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:07:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Far Side Returns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:51 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:43, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Ah, just go ahead and buy the complete set. These are not new ones. > bill w > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > > Thanks, I know. He explains that this is a warm-up for new cartoons > appearing in 2020. > (And I haven't seen all of these old ones). :) > Great news! Maybe, just maybe we can get some more from Bill Watterson. In my opinion these are the two greatest comic strip writers ever, but I do miss the Katzenjammer kids. bill w > > https://www.thefarside.com/about > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 19:04:40 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 13:04:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] merry christmas! was: RE: The president's letter In-Reply-To: <012c01d5b5c9$86f00af0$94d020d0$@rainier66.com> References: <012c01d5b5c9$86f00af0$94d020d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Sushi, sashimi, whatever. You know the oceans are an enormous toilet bowl. I'll eat raw fish when those creatures come on land to excrete. Merry, Happy, and whatever to those with Winter blues, common around Xmas. May you have someone wonderful to meet under the mistletoe. bill w On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:37 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Hibbard > > > > >...Merry Christmas Spike! And a happy, healthy 2020!... Meanwhile, do what > you can and Merry Christmas!... > > Thanks Bill! Very much the same to you sir. > > I will put aside the overly introspective questions on the nature of > "merry" > and offer a perspective of our world today. > > Technological change is disrupting our world on many levels. One of our > own > former ExI posters, Julian Assange was pointing out 20 years ago in this > forum that government power is enabled by secrecy, and that if the secrets > were exposed corruption would be forced out. We are compelled to admit he > has a valid point. It is becoming ever clearer the man was right on the > money. China is locking down their societies (or attempting to.) But > information wants to be free. The Chinese people can see what the Hong > Kong > people have, and they want that. Rather than trying to give that to a > billion people, China's strategy is to stop the Chinese people from seeing > what the Hong Kong people have. An alternative would be to take away the > freedoms and material wealth the Hong Kong people have. I am very > optimistic in the near-term outlook for China, for I suspect that once the > genie of freedom is out of the bottle, the commies will be unable to stuff > him back in. > > Anyone who is into astronomy can scarcely fail to be merry in our times. > Those LIGO results continue to stream in and they seldom fail to amaze. > Then that crazy weird 70 solar mass black hole, discovered right here in > our > own galaxy, by the Chinese of all things. How crazy is that? They > discovered that black hole without even government command. How can a 70 > solar mass black hole have formed in this neighborhood? > > Medical technology marches on as it always has, but a most promising trend > which has been steadily increasing for decades is the patient's access to > his own test results. Any patient enabled with the understanding of how to > access information has such a powerful tool set in gaining and maintaining > health. A week ago today I landed in the hospital for the first time in my > (long) life with a lung infection. The experience was most educational. > Details available on request. The medics tell me I will live. > > My contact with young people fills me with both hope and fear on many > levels. I commented earlier on Maslow's Hierarchy. When I was the age my > Science Olympians are now, my peers and I were thinking of what menial job > we might be able to land and our aspirations to break 3 dollars an hour, > that sort of thing, down in the safety and comfort range. None of these > young people, growing up in an ordinary middle-class setting, is anywhere > other than right up at the top, diving deep on self-actualization. Think > about how difficult it must me for them. They can't get any > self-actualization from having climbed up that ladder, managing to escape > dangerous neighborhoods and poverty. These poor souls don't even know they > started at the top of Mazlow's Hierarchy! At the same time, some of them > know not where their next meal is coming from. They might cruise Luigi's > for pizza or the Outrageous Burrito, or of their posse so decides, they > might end up at one of the old reliable standards such as Burger King or > Taco Bell. Some are so poverty-stricken, they might be compelled to just > go > home and raid the refrigerator, unable to afford even basic sushi. They > don't know where that next meal is coming from. Pitiful souls they are. > But they are damn good at putting together a counterfeit science project on > short notice. They know how to make those look really good, in just a > coupla hours, completely devoid of any actual understanding of the topic at > hand, but still look great doing it. > > I am thankful in a way for living when I do and being in the front row for > the coming spectacle in the 2020 summer games, as our societies follow the > logical path and recognize we could have easily anticipated male athletes > vaguely pretending to be transgender, showing up wanting to compete in > women's weightlifting, track, cycling etc. I don't know how that is going > to play out, but I shall enjoy watching them struggle with the question. > > I do feel deep pity for those who must convince others how bad it all is. > If their jobs require this for some reason, such as aspiring > revolutionaries, it must be so frustrating to find that every oppressed > faceless mass thinks he is going to be a millionaire. Even more > frustrating > to the revolutionary is knowing that many of these oppressed fools damn > well > might do so, in spite of the unfairness of it all. They are too stupid to > be unhappy! Life must be so hard for revolutionaries today, with society > all around them crushed by grinding prosperity. > > I do wish all of you the merriest of Christmas seasons. May your m > approach > 1 and stay there as long as necessary to provide sufficient contrast next > Christmas season when it must be again increased even artificially be > chemical means. May my Extropian friends and their families enjoy a > prosperous and healthy 2020. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 19:15:06 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:15:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> My prediction is that very soon after experimentalists start doing > observation of the physics in the brain in a non-qualia blind way, * The experimentalists would have no choice in the matter, they'd have to observe in a non-qualia blind way. The only way they'd know if they'd produced a subjective sensation of redness is to listen to the noises made by the subject's mouth, and that would be a very poor way to know things because there is no evidence qualia is required to produce noise. *> they will discover which of all their descriptions of physics are a > description of redness. * I would bet money no new fundamental physics will be required to explain how and when the brain sends signals to the muscles of the mouth that causes it to make a sound like "I am experiencing red". But I would also bet money that very soon they will NOT even be able to even prove that the experimental subject is subjectively experiencing the qualia red much less determine which law of physics produced it. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 21:18:55 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:18:55 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would also bet money that very soon they will NOT even be able to even prove that the experimental subject is subjectively experiencing the qualia red much less determine which law of physics produced it. John K Clark I am no physicist nor am up on any of the consciousness research and can't tell qualia from subjective experience. But - it would seem a simple thing to do brain scans while the subject is looking at red or whatever stimulus you want to trace in the brain to its ultimate destination, and thus get a picture of what happens in the subject's brain when those stimuli are present. bill w On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:25 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:07 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> My prediction is that very soon after experimentalists start doing >> observation of the physics in the brain in a non-qualia blind way, * > > > The experimentalists would have no choice in the matter, they'd have to > observe in a non-qualia blind way. The only way they'd know if they'd > produced a subjective sensation of redness is to listen to the noises made > by the subject's mouth, and that would be a very poor way to know things > because there is no evidence qualia is required to produce noise. > > *> they will discover which of all their descriptions of physics are a >> description of redness. * > > > I would bet money no new fundamental physics will be required to explain > how and when the brain sends signals to the muscles of the mouth that > causes it to make a sound like "I am experiencing red". But I would also > bet money that very soon they will NOT even be able to even prove that the > experimental subject is subjectively experiencing the qualia red much less > determine which law of physics produced it. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:03:53 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 17:03:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:22 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I am no physicist nor am up on any of the consciousness research and > can't tell qualia from subjective experience. But - it would seem a simple > thing to do brain scans while the subject is looking at red or whatever > stimulus you want to trace in the brain to its ultimate destination, and > thus get a picture of what happens in the subject's brain when those > stimuli are present. > It could show you how the noise "I am experiencing the qualia red" was produced by the mouth of the subject, but how on earth could a MRI brain scan every tell you that the brain in question was experiencing the red qualia, or experiencing any qualia whatsoever? How could you even in theory ever prove that solipsism was untrue? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:19:53 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:19:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:06 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 4:22 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > I am no physicist nor am up on any of the consciousness research and >> can't tell qualia from subjective experience. But - it would seem a simple >> thing to do brain scans while the subject is looking at red or whatever >> stimulus you want to trace in the brain to its ultimate destination, and >> thus get a picture of what happens in the subject's brain when those >> stimuli are present. >> > > > It could show you how the noise "I am experiencing the qualia red" was > produced by the mouth of the subject, but how on earth could a MRI brain > scan every tell you that the brain in question was experiencing the red > qualia, or experiencing any qualia whatsoever? How could you even in theory > ever prove that solipsism was untrue? > > John K Clark > I am assuming that the neural networks that increase in activity when a certain stimulus is applied is the same - equal - isomorphic - whatever you want to call it - as the conscious experience. They don't produce the conscious experience as a separate response - they ARE the conscious experience. When that network lights up just as it did last time and the time before and so on, when a red stimulus was presented, you have nailed down where red is (or, I suppose if you want to be really precise, that wavelength of red). If you show a red apple, you get that network and another one, presumably representing apples. Of course you also ask the subject what he is experiencing. He'd better say red or we are in trouble! I don't know that solipsism is amenable to proof. bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:37:42 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 16:37:42 -0600 Subject: [ExI] merry christmas! was: RE: The president's letter In-Reply-To: References: <012c01d5b5c9$86f00af0$94d020d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <81FD9ADC-137B-4359-9D90-15AFEC1D264C@gmail.com> It?s not the fish poop in the ocean that bothers me ? it?s the people poop. SR Ballard > On Dec 18, 2019, at 1:04 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Sushi, sashimi, whatever. You know the oceans are an enormous toilet bowl. I'll eat raw fish when those creatures come on land to excrete. > > Merry, Happy, and whatever to those with Winter blues, common around Xmas. May you have someone wonderful to meet under the mistletoe. bill w > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:37 AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bill Hibbard >> >> >> >> >...Merry Christmas Spike! And a happy, healthy 2020!... Meanwhile, do what >> you can and Merry Christmas!... >> >> Thanks Bill! Very much the same to you sir. >> >> I will put aside the overly introspective questions on the nature of "merry" >> and offer a perspective of our world today. >> >> Technological change is disrupting our world on many levels. One of our own >> former ExI posters, Julian Assange was pointing out 20 years ago in this >> forum that government power is enabled by secrecy, and that if the secrets >> were exposed corruption would be forced out. We are compelled to admit he >> has a valid point. It is becoming ever clearer the man was right on the >> money. China is locking down their societies (or attempting to.) But >> information wants to be free. The Chinese people can see what the Hong Kong >> people have, and they want that. Rather than trying to give that to a >> billion people, China's strategy is to stop the Chinese people from seeing >> what the Hong Kong people have. An alternative would be to take away the >> freedoms and material wealth the Hong Kong people have. I am very >> optimistic in the near-term outlook for China, for I suspect that once the >> genie of freedom is out of the bottle, the commies will be unable to stuff >> him back in. >> >> Anyone who is into astronomy can scarcely fail to be merry in our times. >> Those LIGO results continue to stream in and they seldom fail to amaze. >> Then that crazy weird 70 solar mass black hole, discovered right here in our >> own galaxy, by the Chinese of all things. How crazy is that? They >> discovered that black hole without even government command. How can a 70 >> solar mass black hole have formed in this neighborhood? >> >> Medical technology marches on as it always has, but a most promising trend >> which has been steadily increasing for decades is the patient's access to >> his own test results. Any patient enabled with the understanding of how to >> access information has such a powerful tool set in gaining and maintaining >> health. A week ago today I landed in the hospital for the first time in my >> (long) life with a lung infection. The experience was most educational. >> Details available on request. The medics tell me I will live. >> >> My contact with young people fills me with both hope and fear on many >> levels. I commented earlier on Maslow's Hierarchy. When I was the age my >> Science Olympians are now, my peers and I were thinking of what menial job >> we might be able to land and our aspirations to break 3 dollars an hour, >> that sort of thing, down in the safety and comfort range. None of these >> young people, growing up in an ordinary middle-class setting, is anywhere >> other than right up at the top, diving deep on self-actualization. Think >> about how difficult it must me for them. They can't get any >> self-actualization from having climbed up that ladder, managing to escape >> dangerous neighborhoods and poverty. These poor souls don't even know they >> started at the top of Mazlow's Hierarchy! At the same time, some of them >> know not where their next meal is coming from. They might cruise Luigi's >> for pizza or the Outrageous Burrito, or of their posse so decides, they >> might end up at one of the old reliable standards such as Burger King or >> Taco Bell. Some are so poverty-stricken, they might be compelled to just go >> home and raid the refrigerator, unable to afford even basic sushi. They >> don't know where that next meal is coming from. Pitiful souls they are. >> But they are damn good at putting together a counterfeit science project on >> short notice. They know how to make those look really good, in just a >> coupla hours, completely devoid of any actual understanding of the topic at >> hand, but still look great doing it. >> >> I am thankful in a way for living when I do and being in the front row for >> the coming spectacle in the 2020 summer games, as our societies follow the >> logical path and recognize we could have easily anticipated male athletes >> vaguely pretending to be transgender, showing up wanting to compete in >> women's weightlifting, track, cycling etc. I don't know how that is going >> to play out, but I shall enjoy watching them struggle with the question. >> >> I do feel deep pity for those who must convince others how bad it all is. >> If their jobs require this for some reason, such as aspiring >> revolutionaries, it must be so frustrating to find that every oppressed >> faceless mass thinks he is going to be a millionaire. Even more frustrating >> to the revolutionary is knowing that many of these oppressed fools damn well >> might do so, in spite of the unfairness of it all. They are too stupid to >> be unhappy! Life must be so hard for revolutionaries today, with society >> all around them crushed by grinding prosperity. >> >> I do wish all of you the merriest of Christmas seasons. May your m approach >> 1 and stay there as long as necessary to provide sufficient contrast next >> Christmas season when it must be again increased even artificially be >> chemical means. May my Extropian friends and their families enjoy a >> prosperous and healthy 2020. >> >> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 22:43:36 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:43:36 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 at 02:07, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Statish, > > My prediction is that very soon after experimentalists start doing > observation of the physics in the brain in a non-qualia blind way, they > will discover which of all their descriptions of physics are a description > of redness. This will also include the discovery of how computational > binding of redness and greenness is physically achieved. This will falsify > functionalism, as nobody will ever be able to produce a redness experience, > in a substrate independent way, and it will never be possible to do > computational binding on any such functional redness and greenness, as > required to have composite qualitative conscious experiences. > > > Your way of thinking is both not falsifiable and not verifiable, > resulting in the impossibly hard problems Chalmers has become famous four > claiming exist. > A logical argument can be valid whether or not the premises are true: "If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal". This is true whether or not in fact all men are mortal and whether or not Socrates is a man. If you challenge it, you have to challenge the logic. -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 23:04:31 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 18:04:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >I am assuming that the neural networks that increase in activity when a > certain stimulus is applied is the same - equal - isomorphic - whatever you > want to call it - as the conscious experience. > I think that is an excellent assumption but it is nevertheless just an assumption and one based on intellagent behavior; that's why you believe animals are more conscious than rocks and why you believe when one of your fellow human beings is taking a calculus exam he is probably conscious but when he is sleeping, or under anesthesia, or dead he is probably not. And that is also why intelligence theories are so much more important than consciousness theories. John K Clark > They don't produce the conscious experience as a separate response - they > ARE the conscious experience. When that network lights up just as it did > last time and the time before and so on, when a red stimulus was presented, > you have nailed down where red is (or, I suppose if you want to be really > precise, that wavelength of red). If you show a red apple, you get that > network and another one, presumably representing apples. > > Of course you also ask the subject what he is experiencing. He'd better > say red or we are in trouble! > > I don't know that solipsism is amenable to proof. 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 Dec 19 00:29:54 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 18:29:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with all of that, John. I don't know what else you can do with intelligence research. People don't think it is tested by the current IQ tests, but have not come up with alternatives which are demonstrably better. It tends to correlate with very many things, though not creativity. Creativity suffers the same problems in that people don't agree with creativity tests as measuring creativity. I would agree that thinking of unusual uses for a brick doesn't appeal to me either (a common test on which I did poorly, so obviously it's no good). We all want to know what intelligence is and I am going to enlighten you now: it is the ability to answer questions on an IQ test. We accept that chemistry class tests measure chemical knowledge, and that physics class tests measure physics knowledge, but somehow are not happy with IQ tests, even though they are the most useful tests we have. I suspect some people of sour grapes. What would you like to see done in intelligence research? bill w On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:15 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >I am assuming that the neural networks that increase in activity when a >> certain stimulus is applied is the same - equal - isomorphic - whatever you >> want to call it - as the conscious experience. >> > > I think that is an excellent assumption but it is nevertheless just an > assumption and one based on intellagent behavior; that's why you believe > animals are more conscious than rocks and why you believe when one of your > fellow human beings is taking a calculus exam he is probably conscious but > when he is sleeping, or under anesthesia, or dead he is probably not. And > that is also why intelligence theories are so much more important than > consciousness theories. > > John K Clark > > > > > > >> They don't produce the conscious experience as a separate response - they >> ARE the conscious experience. When that network lights up just as it did >> last time and the time before and so on, when a red stimulus was presented, >> you have nailed down where red is (or, I suppose if you want to be really >> precise, that wavelength of red). If you show a red apple, you get that >> network and another one, presumably representing apples. >> >> Of course you also ask the subject what he is experiencing. He'd better >> say red or we are in trouble! >> >> I don't know that solipsism is amenable to proof. bill w >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 04:22:50 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 23:22:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] merry christmas! was: RE: The president's letter In-Reply-To: References: <012c01d5b5c9$86f00af0$94d020d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 2:17 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Sushi, sashimi, whatever. You know the oceans are an enormous toilet > bowl. I'll eat raw fish when those creatures come on land to excrete. > Personally, I don't eat anything that inhabits the same planet as does shit. Merry mirth to you all in the cold seasons! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 06:49:34 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 22:49:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Measuring biological aging in humans Message-ID: <1DC6B81E-D214-4A34-862E-58F05EEBB313@gmail.com> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13080 This kind of fits with my view of how much damage and decline remains hidden until it?s well underway and often too late to fix or reverse. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 13:38:54 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 08:38:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Measuring biological aging in humans In-Reply-To: <1DC6B81E-D214-4A34-862E-58F05EEBB313@gmail.com> References: <1DC6B81E-D214-4A34-862E-58F05EEBB313@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yep. Check out: https://joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com/ RECENT POSTS Pulsed Yamanaka Factors Set Back Epigenic Age Telomeres: The Longer the Better Interview with Josh Mitteldorf Methylation Clocks and True Biological Age Scaling the Alzheimer?s Cure -Dave On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:52 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acel.13080 > > This kind of fits with my view of how much damage and decline remains > hidden until it?s well underway and often too late to fix or reverse. > > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 14:36:34 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:36:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What would you like to see done in intelligence research? > I'm not complaining, thanks to the Free Market there is already plenty of intelligence research done in Silicon Valley and elsewhere because doing so has a tendency to make people ridiculously rich so it needs no encouragement by me. I'm just saying that those who like to develop intricate consciousness theories would do better if they tried to figure out better ways to make something intelligent instead because doing so just might make them a billionaire and if they're successful at producing intelligence they'll get consciousness automatically as a free bonus. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 16:57:07 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:57:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence, it?s about physical qualities. What is it like? Is the physics I represent red with the same as yours, or is it more like your greenness? Intelligent computer systems are abstracted away from physical qualities. Any physical property can represent a 1, but only if you have a dictionary interpretation mechanism to get the one from that particular physical property. We, on the other hand represent information directly on physical qualities, like redness and greenness. This is more efficient, since you don?t need the abstraction layer to make it substrate independent. Stathis, from what I hear from you, you are saying that redness is not a physical quality and that greenness is not something physically different. Is that the really case? On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:38 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > What would you like to see done in intelligence research? >> > > I'm not complaining, thanks to the Free Market there is already plenty of > intelligence research done in Silicon Valley and elsewhere because doing so > has a tendency to make people ridiculously rich so it needs no > encouragement by me. I'm just saying that those who like to develop > intricate consciousness theories would do better if they tried to figure > out better ways to make something intelligent instead because doing so just > might make them a billionaire and if they're successful at producing > intelligence they'll get consciousness automatically as a free bonus. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 17:18:14 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 11:18:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Brent Allsop via extropy-chat 11:00 AM (12 minutes ago) to *Brent*, ExI Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence, I don't know where else you would use your intelligence unless it was in your conscious mind (unconscious too, of course). Maybe you mean something different with the term 'functionality', but we cannot perform any functions of a voluntary nature without consciousness. Of course I haven't read all the articles and books and don't know how twisted the definitions get there of functionality and whatever. And everything is a physical quality and quantity to me as a materialist. bill w On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence, it?s about > physical qualities. What is it like? Is the physics I represent red with > the same as yours, or is it more like your greenness? Intelligent computer > systems are abstracted away from physical qualities. Any physical property > can represent a 1, but only if you have a dictionary interpretation > mechanism to get the one from that particular physical property. We, on > the other hand represent information directly on physical qualities, like > redness and greenness. This is more efficient, since you don?t need the > abstraction layer to make it substrate independent. > > > > Stathis, from what I hear from you, you are saying that redness is not a > physical quality and that greenness is not something physically different. > Is that the really case? > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:38 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > What would you like to see done in intelligence research? >>> >> >> I'm not complaining, thanks to the Free Market there is already plenty of >> intelligence research done in Silicon Valley and elsewhere because doing so >> has a tendency to make people ridiculously rich so it needs no >> encouragement by me. I'm just saying that those who like to develop >> intricate consciousness theories would do better if they tried to figure >> out better ways to make something intelligent instead because doing so just >> might make them a billionaire and if they're successful at producing >> intelligence they'll get consciousness automatically as a free bonus. >> >> 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 brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 17:33:58 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:33:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi William, Yes, I probably didn?t quite say that correctly. I?m just trying to point out that self-awareness, intelligence, and all forms of functionality can be achieved in multiple ways, some of which aren?t conscious. See this ?3 Robots that are functionally equivalent but qualitatively different ? paper. If you define consciousness to be computationally bound elemental physical qualities like redness and greenness, then a substrate independent system that uses an abstract word like ?red? to represent knowledge of red things it isn?t conscious. The abstract word ?red? has no physical quality, while our redness physical quality is the conscious definition of the word ?red?. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Brent Allsop via extropy-chat > 11:00 AM (12 minutes ago) > to *Brent*, ExI > > Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence, > > > I don't know where else you would use your intelligence unless it was in > your conscious mind (unconscious too, of course). Maybe you mean something > different with the term 'functionality', but we cannot perform any > functions of a voluntary nature without consciousness. Of course I haven't > read all the articles and books and don't know how twisted the definitions > get there of functionality and whatever. And everything is a physical > quality and quantity to me as a materialist. > > > bill w > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence, it?s about >> physical qualities. What is it like? Is the physics I represent red with >> the same as yours, or is it more like your greenness? Intelligent computer >> systems are abstracted away from physical qualities. Any physical property >> can represent a 1, but only if you have a dictionary interpretation >> mechanism to get the one from that particular physical property. We, on >> the other hand represent information directly on physical qualities, like >> redness and greenness. This is more efficient, since you don?t need the >> abstraction layer to make it substrate independent. >> >> >> >> Stathis, from what I hear from you, you are saying that redness is not a >> physical quality and that greenness is not something physically different. >> Is that the really case? >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:38 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>> > What would you like to see done in intelligence research? >>>> >>> >>> I'm not complaining, thanks to the Free Market there is already plenty >>> of intelligence research done in Silicon Valley and elsewhere because doing >>> so has a tendency to make people ridiculously rich so it needs no >>> encouragement by me. I'm just saying that those who like to develop >>> intricate consciousness theories would do better if they tried to figure >>> out better ways to make something intelligent instead because doing so just >>> might make them a billionaire and if they're successful at producing >>> intelligence they'll get consciousness automatically as a free bonus. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 17:45:21 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:45:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: William, You said: ?we cannot perform any functions of a voluntary nature without consciousness?. This depends on your definition of ?voluntary?. You can certainly achieve the same functionally of voluntary choice with an abstract system. But if you define ?voluntary?, like you do consciousness: to be a system that makes decisions with a system implemented directly on physical qualities, then you are right. A substrate independent computer cannot perform ?voluntary? actions, per this definition. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:19 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Brent Allsop via extropy-chat > 11:00 AM (12 minutes ago) > to *Brent*, ExI > > Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence, > > > I don't know where else you would use your intelligence unless it was in > your conscious mind (unconscious too, of course). Maybe you mean something > different with the term 'functionality', but we cannot perform any > functions of a voluntary nature without consciousness. Of course I haven't > read all the articles and books and don't know how twisted the definitions > get there of functionality and whatever. And everything is a physical > quality and quantity to me as a materialist. > > > bill w > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:00 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence, it?s about >> physical qualities. What is it like? Is the physics I represent red with >> the same as yours, or is it more like your greenness? Intelligent computer >> systems are abstracted away from physical qualities. Any physical property >> can represent a 1, but only if you have a dictionary interpretation >> mechanism to get the one from that particular physical property. We, on >> the other hand represent information directly on physical qualities, like >> redness and greenness. This is more efficient, since you don?t need the >> abstraction layer to make it substrate independent. >> >> >> >> Stathis, from what I hear from you, you are saying that redness is not a >> physical quality and that greenness is not something physically different. >> Is that the really case? >> >> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:38 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 7:33 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>> > What would you like to see done in intelligence research? >>>> >>> >>> I'm not complaining, thanks to the Free Market there is already plenty >>> of intelligence research done in Silicon Valley and elsewhere because doing >>> so has a tendency to make people ridiculously rich so it needs no >>> encouragement by me. I'm just saying that those who like to develop >>> intricate consciousness theories would do better if they tried to figure >>> out better ways to make something intelligent instead because doing so just >>> might make them a billionaire and if they're successful at producing >>> intelligence they'll get consciousness automatically as a free bonus. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 18:14:20 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:14:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:48 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > You can certainly achieve the same functionally of voluntary choice > with an abstract system. But if you define ?voluntary?, like you do > consciousness: to be a system that makes decisions with a system > implemented directly on physical qualities, then you are right. A > substrate independent computer cannot perform ?voluntary? actions, per this > definition. > I don't understand any of that. If you or I or a computer does X rather than Y there are only 2 possibilities: 1) You I and the AI did it for a reason, that is to say we did it because of cause and effect. 2) You I and the AI did it for *no* reason, that is to say we did it randomly. There are no other possibilities because everything either happens for a reason or it doesn't happen for a reason. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 19:42:29 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 12:42:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, Oh that?s our problem: you haven?t yet seen the descriptions of the ?1. Week?, ?2. Stronger?, and ?3 Strongest? forms of effing the ineffable explained in this ?Objectively, We are Blind to Physical Qualities ? paper, referenced in ?Representational Qualia Theory ?. Our physical knowledge of our right field of vision exists in our left hemisphere, and visa versa for the left field of vision. Steven Lehar recommends thinking of it as a ?diorama? of knowledge, split between our brain hemispheres. The corpus callosum can ?computationally bind? these two hemispheres into one composite awareness of what we see. Like ?I think, therefor I am? we cannot doubt the reality and physical quality of both of these physical hemispheres of knowledge. We don?t perceive them, they are the final result of perception, the physical knowledge we are directly aware of. In other words, the corpus callosum is performing the ?3. Strongest? form of effing the ineffable by enabling both your right and left hemisphere to be directly aware of the physical knowledge in the other in one unified conscious experience through computational binding. The ?3. Strongest? form of effing the ineffable was portrayed as a neural ponytail in the Avatar movie . With such a neural ponytail, you could experience all of the experience, not just half. If your redness was like your partners greenness, you would be directly aware of such physical facts with such a neural ponytail. Also, I?m not the only one that has realized that such a neural ponytail could falsify solipsism by enabling us to be directly aware of physical knowledge someone else was experiencing. (or that failing to achieve such a neural ponytail could verify it). See this: ?A Modest Proposal for Solving the Solipsism Problem ? in Scientific American. Note: the reason it is only ?modest? is because McGinn is only using the ?2. Stronger? form of effing the ineffable, not the ?3. Strongest? where you are directly aware of other?s physical knowledge. V. S. Ramachandran was the first to propose this type of computational binding and effing of the ineffable in his ?3 laws of qualia ? paper where he proposed connecting 2 brains with a similar ?bundle of neurons,? in the 90s. When I presented our paper to him he basically admitted he didn?t realize it?s significance way back then. On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:16 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 12:48 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> > You can certainly achieve the same functionally of voluntary choice >> with an abstract system. But if you define ?voluntary?, like you do >> consciousness: to be a system that makes decisions with a system >> implemented directly on physical qualities, then you are right. A >> substrate independent computer cannot perform ?voluntary? actions, per this >> definition. >> > > I don't understand any of that. If you or I or a computer does X rather > than Y there are only 2 possibilities: > 1) You I and the AI did it for a reason, that is to say we did it because > of cause and effect. > 2) You I and the AI did it for *no* reason, that is to say we did it > randomly. > > There are no other possibilities because everything either happens for a > reason or it doesn't happen for a reason. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 22:33:41 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:33:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers Message-ID: Brent, I don't see how that changes what I said, everything that you do and everything a AI does and everything anything does either happens for a reason and thus is subject to cause and effect or it doesn't happen for a reason and thus is random. So you're doomed to failure if you try to imbue words like "volition" or "choice" with some sort of mystical power that only something that is wet and squishy like humans have but something that is dry and hard like a computer never could. And a Avatar style neural ponytail would certainly be an interesting gadget but I don't see how it could solve and of the philosophical problems you're talking about. I don't see how such a neural ponytail could falsify solipsism, if I used it to merge with a worm the human/worm hybrid might be conscious but it could be argued that it was the human part that was doing all the heavy lifting and making all of the magical conscious mojo juice. I might also use it with a bat as in the famous thought experiment and learn what it's like to be a bat/human hybrid, but I still wouldn't know what it's like to be a pure non-hybrid 100% bat living in the wild in a cave. And you and I might try it and then John Allsop would know what it's like to be Brent Clark, but Brent Allsop still wouldn't know what it's like to be John Clark, to do that you'd have to change your brain so it's identical to John Clark's but then you wouldn't be Brent Allsop anymore, you'd be John Clark. I have yet to hear even a hint of a reason why humans can be intelligent and conscious but computers can only be conscious; and if you can have one without the other I can't see how Darwinian Evolution managed to come up with a conscious creature like me because Evolution can only see intelligence, it can't directly detect consciousness any better than you or I can so natural selection can't produce it unless it's the byproduct of something that it can see. Something like intelligence. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 22:38:41 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:38:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:57 AM Brent Allsop wrote: *> Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence,* > Then consciousness research is doomed to get precisely nowhere and is a total waste of time. We can not directly detect consciousness in anybody except for ourselves and the only reason we don't believe we are the only conscious thing in the universe is because we see lots of other things that behave intelligently. * > Intelligent computer systems are abstracted away from physical > qualities. * > Yes, and a good thing too because consciousness is about as abstract as you can get. > Any physical property can represent a 1, but only if you have a > dictionary interpretation mechanism to get the one from that particular > physical property. > And yet that 1 in the computer's memory can help it drive a car or diagnose a disease or beat you at chess. So how is that any different from the way you or I use 1, other than the fact that I know for certain I'm conscious but only strongly suspect that you and the AI are? > *> We, on the other hand represent information directly on physical > qualities, like redness and greenness. * > What's with this "we" business? I have no reason to think that you're conscious but an equally intelligently behaving computer is not. > Stathis, from what I hear from you, you are saying that redness is not a > physical quality and that greenness is not something physically different. > Is that the really case? > I don't know about Stathis but I think for a AI redness would be physically different from greenness and for the same reason a memory chip containing the number 17 is physically different from a memory chip containing the number 13. I'm assuming the AI is able to experience qualia and I think that is a good bet, I also think it's a good bet you experience qualia too. But the only thing in the universe that is known for certain to experience it is me. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 22:58:02 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:58:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, why do you require certainty? That is not what science is, is it? All science can ask is that a phenomenon is highly reliable. Of course I have not, as I said, read the books and done a lot of thinking about this, but........ Why couldn't you just imagine a study where a stimulus is presented to someone and they give you a verbal description of it which aligns with yours. This means that both of you are conscious (among other things like intactness of the visual and auditory systems and speech centers). Repeat with any ordinary stimulus, not some illusion, and you will get the same results. Now do the same thing with an eeg showing that the subject is in stage 4 sleep. No response. Unconscious. Completely reliable. I am sure some of you will find that too simple and naive' and will contradict it, but I would like to know just what is wrong with the above. I do think you will tell me that an AI can do what a person can do, except for the sleep study. Well, I guess that means the AI is conscious. A lot of people won't be happy with that. bill w On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 4:44 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 11:57 AM Brent Allsop > wrote: > > *> Consciousness isn?t about functionality or intelligence,* >> > > Then consciousness research is doomed to get precisely nowhere and is a > total waste of time. We can not directly detect consciousness in anybody > except for ourselves and the only reason we don't believe we are the only > conscious thing in the universe is because we see lots of other things that > behave intelligently. > > * > Intelligent computer systems are abstracted away from physical >> qualities. * >> > > Yes, and a good thing too because consciousness is about as abstract as > you can get. > > > Any physical property can represent a 1, but only if you have a >> dictionary interpretation mechanism to get the one from that particular >> physical property. >> > > And yet that 1 in the computer's memory can help it drive a car or > diagnose a disease or beat you at chess. So how is that any different from > the way you or I use 1, other than the fact that I know for certain I'm > conscious but only strongly suspect that you and the AI are? > > >> *> We, on the other hand represent information directly on physical >> qualities, like redness and greenness. * >> > > What's with this "we" business? I have no reason to think that you're > conscious but an equally intelligently behaving computer is not. > > > Stathis, from what I hear from you, you are saying that redness is not >> a physical quality and that greenness is not something physically >> different. Is that the really case? >> > > I don't know about Stathis but I think for a AI redness would be > physically different from greenness and for the same reason a memory chip > containing the number 17 is physically different from a memory chip > containing the number 13. I'm assuming the AI is able to experience qualia > and I think that is a good bet, I also think it's a good bet you experience > qualia too. But the only thing in the universe that is known for certain to > experience it is me. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 23:12:44 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:12:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:59 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > John, why do you require certainty? > > Because certainty is more reliable. I know with certainty what my redness is like, and that redness is different than my greenness. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 23:32:50 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:32:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, you are a hard sell. You could repeat my little study with literally billions of subjects (I don't know how many decimal places that is) and get the same results every time. So you maintain that certainly only comes from inner experience, I assume. bill w On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:14 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:59 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> John, why do you require certainty? >> >> > Because certainty is more reliable. I know with certainty what my redness > is like, and that redness is different than my greenness. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 02:13:50 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 19:13:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi John, Oh no. I was only disagreeing with your comments like: ?We can not directly detect consciousness in anybody except for ourselves? I Completely agree with everything else you are saying including what you are saying about volition, choice?, You?ve even converted me to the camp that says the term AGI is bad. Long live the term AI! ?I don't see how such a neural ponytail could falsify solipsism? Are you saying that the left hemisphere of your brain does not know, absolutely, that it is *NOT* the only hemisphere in existence? These twins know, directly and absolutely that their twin?s brain and consciousness exist, don?t you think? ?you wouldn't be Brent Allsop anymore, you'd be John Clark.? When I?m talking about effing the ineffable, I?m only talking about at the elemental redness level, not the composite qualia level. When you experience the redness of the strawberry there is a huge amount of other phenomenal ideas (including memories like red is warm, and sweet, tastes great?) that are computationally bound to make up that composite qualitative experience. For every single piece of such a composite qualitative experience, there must be something physical that is that elemental piece. Some people think of qualia as everything but the elemental redness (they think red is a quality of the strawberry). Given that, again, I pretty much agree with you on how difficult it would be to eff an entire composite qualitative experiences. ?I have yet to hear even a hint of a reason why humans can be intelligent and conscious but computers can only be conscious[intelligent?]? It?s as simple as the abstract word red isn?t red. You need a dictionary to know what red means. While glutamate (or at least something in our brain) is what you should find in that dictionary as that definition. I can't see how Darwinian Evolution managed to come up with a conscious creature like me Darwinian evolution decided to run your consciousness directly on physical qualities, because it is more efficient and it didn?t need the extra hardware required to make you substrate independent. Brent ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: John Clark Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers To: Brent Allsop Brent, I don't see how that changes what I said, everything that you do and everything a AI does and everything anything does either happens for a reason and thus is subject to cause and effect or it doesn't happen for a reason and thus is random. So you're doomed to failure if you try to imbue words like "volition" or "choice" with some sort of mystical power that only something that is wet and squishy like humans have but something that is dry and hard like a computer never could. And a Avatar style neural ponytail would certainly be an interesting gadget but I don't see how it could solve and of the philosophical problems you're talking about. I don't see how such a neural ponytail could falsify solipsism, if I used it to merge with a worm the human/worm hybrid might be conscious but it could be argued that it was the human part that was doing all the heavy lifting and making all of the magical conscious mojo juice. I might also use it with a bat as in the famous thought experiment and learn what it's like to be a bat/human hybrid, but I still wouldn't know what it's like to be a pure non-hybrid 100% bat living in the wild in a cave. And you and I might try it and then John Allsop would know what it's like to be Brent Clark, but Brent Allsop still wouldn't know what it's like to be John Clark, to do that you'd have to change your brain so it's identical to John Clark's but then you wouldn't be Brent Allsop anymore, you'd be John Clark. I have yet to hear even a hint of a reason why humans can be intelligent and conscious but computers can only be conscious; and if you can have one without the other I can't see how Darwinian Evolution managed to come up with a conscious creature like me because Evolution can only see intelligence, it can't directly detect consciousness any better than you or I can so natural selection can't produce it unless it's the byproduct of something that it can see. Something like intelligence. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 03:05:17 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:05:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] theories Message-ID: In every science there are multiple theories of various things, and as time goes on many get superceded or just tossed out (ether). In your opinion what science has had the most theories die out, often suddenly? That happens because a new theory simply does way better at explaining nature. So - what theorist holds the record for killing the most theories? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 05:29:04 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:29:04 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 06:44, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > John, > > Oh that?s our problem: you haven?t yet seen the descriptions of the ?1. > Week?, ?2. Stronger?, and ?3 Strongest? forms of effing the ineffable > explained in this ?Objectively, We are Blind to Physical Qualities > ? > paper, referenced in ?Representational Qualia Theory > ?. > > > > Our physical knowledge of our right field of vision exists in our left > hemisphere, and visa versa for the left field of vision. Steven Lehar > recommends thinking of it > as a ?diorama? of knowledge, split between our brain hemispheres. The > corpus callosum can ?computationally bind? these two hemispheres into one > composite awareness of what we see. Like ?I think, therefor I am? we > cannot doubt the reality and physical quality of both of these physical > hemispheres of knowledge. We don?t perceive them, they are the final > result of perception, the physical knowledge we are directly aware of. In > other words, the corpus callosum is performing the ?3. Strongest? form of > effing the ineffable by enabling both your right and left hemisphere to be > directly aware of the physical knowledge in the other in one unified > conscious experience through computational binding. > > > > The ?3. Strongest? form of effing the ineffable was portrayed as a neural > ponytail in the Avatar movie > . With such a neural > ponytail, you could experience all of the experience, not just half. If > your redness was like your partners greenness, you would be directly aware > of such physical facts with such a neural ponytail. > > > > Also, I?m not the only one that has realized that such a neural ponytail > could falsify solipsism by enabling us to be directly aware of physical > knowledge someone else was experiencing. (or that failing to achieve such > a neural ponytail could verify it). See this: ?A Modest Proposal for > Solving the Solipsism Problem > ? > in Scientific American. Note: the reason it is only ?modest? is because > McGinn is only using the ?2. Stronger? form of effing the ineffable, not > the ?3. Strongest? where you are directly aware of other?s physical > knowledge. V. S. Ramachandran was the first to propose this type of > computational binding and effing of the ineffable in his ?3 laws of qualia > ? > paper where he proposed connecting 2 brains with a similar ?bundle of > neurons,? in the 90s. When I presented our paper to him he basically > admitted he didn?t realize it?s significance way back then. > There is a problem if the idea that qualia are physical properties is true. Consider three interacting components of a cognitive system A, B, C. These components, their inputs and outputs, can be observed by a scientist. A takes input x from the environment and operates on it producing an output a: A(x) = a. Then B accepts the output from A, such that B(a) = b, and C accepts the output from B, such that C(b) = c. A could be an eye, x could be the light from a strawberry, B could be part of the visual apparatus, C could be vocal cords, and c could be the speech output from the vocal cords; while a and b could be chemical signals in the brain. The scientist now substitutes B1 for B, with the criterion being that B1(a) = B(a) for all a. Here is the problem. If qualia are physical properties, B1 will have different physical properties from B and therefore may have different qualia. But C only responds to the output of B1, which is the same as that of B (that was the criterion for substitution). So the speech from the vocal cords will be the same as before, declaring that the strawberry is red, even though it appears different to the subject. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 13:52:51 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:52:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 6:00 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > John, why do you require certainty? > I don't! My fundamental axiom is intelligent behavior implies consciousness, like all axioms I can't prove it but nevertheless I need to believe it because I could not function if I really thought I was the only conscious entity in the universe. > Why couldn't you just imagine a study where a stimulus is presented to > someone and they give you a verbal description of it which aligns with > yours. This means that both of you are conscious > I think that is almost certainly true and that's good enough, but if you are using that method to detect consciousness that means you are doing it by observing behavior, in particular the intelligent type. So if you want to understand consciousness better your best bet is to figure out a way to make a AI smarter, you'll never reach total certainty but you'll get as close to understanding how consciousness works as it's possible to get. > > Well, I guess that means the AI is conscious. > Yes, probably. > A lot of people won't be happy with that. > A lot of people are already unhappy with AI because they just don't like the idea that something that is not wet and squishy could be conscious, not even if it behaves super-intelligently. But I've got to say as a practical matter it's not important if humans believe AIs are conscious or not, from our point of view it's far more important that AIs believe humans are conscious, because if a ultra-smart AI doesn't people are going to be very VERY *VERY* unhappy. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 16:04:57 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:04:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: Hi Brent: *> I Completely agree with everything else you are saying including what > you are saying about volition, choice?, You?ve even converted me to the > camp that says the term AGI is bad. Long live the term AI!* > So we true believers must band together and punish the AGI heretics who deface the sacred name of AI and....sorry sorry.... I get a little carried away sometimes. >> ?I don't see how such a neural ponytail could falsify solipsism? > > > > *> Are you saying that the left hemisphere of your brain does not know, > absolutely, that it is NOT the only hemisphere in existence? * > Yes. Homo sapiens existed for at least a 100 thousand years before they consciously knew the brain was important much less that the brain had hemispheres; the ancient Egyptians carefully preserved every organ in the body EXCEPT for the brain which they thought was just humdrum packing material that did nothing but hinder the mummification process, so they pulled the brain out of the head through the nostrils with an iron hook and discarded the resulting mess. Alcor is somewhat more careful because we've learned over the centuries but it hasn't been easy because the brain does not come with any built in knowledge about the brain. And unless your corpus callosum that connects your brain hemispheres has been surgically severed your left hemispheres does not currently know what it would be like to be a left hemisphere unconnected to the right hemisphere. > > These twins > > know, directly and absolutely that their twin?s brain and consciousness > exist, don?t you think? > I don't know, it depends on how large the bandwidth between the 2 brains is. I know a little (a very little) about how your brain works just by the trickle of information that comes from your Emails, but if our brains were linked by a fiber optic cable of huge capacity and we were close enough that signal delays were not important and if every thought you had I had, and every thought I had you had, it would be meaningless to say that you and I were 2 seperate people. I don't know the details of the twin's case but I doubt the bandwidth is that large. > >> ?you wouldn't be Brent Allsop anymore, you'd be John Clark.? > > > > *> When I?m talking about effing the ineffable, I?m only talking about at > the elemental redness level,* > When I close my eyes I can remember what redness is like, when the Clark/Allsop hybrid closes his eyes he remembers something called redness but is he remembering Clark's redness or Allsop's redness or neither? Perhaps he's remembering both, perhaps what Clark would call red Allsop would call green, so when the Clark/Allsop hybrid is thinking about "red" he is thinking about yellow. > *It?s as simple as the abstract word red isn?t red. You need a > dictionary to know what red means. * > You can find out what the wavelength of red is from one but nobody learns what the qualia "redness" means from a dictionary, they learn it from examples. Before you learned how to read somebody pointed to a tomato and said "red" then they pointed to a strawberry and said "red", you figured out that the two things had something in common and learned what "redness" signified. A AI would also learn from examples not from a dictionary. Dictionaries and definitions are just not fundamentally important, all definitions in a dictionary are made of words that all have definitions also made of words and round and round we go. The only thing that can break out of that infinite loop and give meaning to language is examples, somebody points to a tall green thing and says "tree" and you get the idea. > > I can't see how Darwinian Evolution managed to come up with a conscious >> creature like me >> > > *> Darwinian evolution decided to run your consciousness directly on > physical qualities,* > Why does Darwinian evolution care about consciousness or even know that such a thing exists? > * > because it is more efficient and it didn?t need the extra hardware > required to make you substrate independent.* > So you think it would be difficult to make a super intelligent computer that was NOT conscious but easier to make a super intelligent computer that WAS conscious. So by Occam's razor if you ever run across a super intelligent computer your default position should be that it is conscious, and you'd better hope the AI feels the same way about you. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 20 16:57:56 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 08:57:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] newtonmas songs again Message-ID: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> In our Newtonmas season, the last struggling bricks and mortar retailers live or die based on Newtonmas sales. It is easy enough to tell if a retailer will survive the coming year by standing outside the door in early December and noting how much merchandise is leaving. The math is pretty easy. In accordance with their annual struggle for survival, they are obligated to play the usual holiday songs, over and over and over, but the victims soon are unable to help themselves from starting to really think about the lyrics. In our era of heightened awareness, we are already scrutinizing the Dean Martin classic Baby It?s Cold Out There, which durn well does sound like some sleazeball has given his guest a date rape drug, which takes effect during the song, and that he or she has nefarious plans for him or her. But consider the older more mainstream stuff, such as We Wish You a Merry Christmas. Such an ?innocent? start, with the greetings and well wishes, but oh how creepy it soon becomes, with that whole ?figgy pudding? business. The innocent mind of course assumes it refers so some mysterious food item perhaps made from literal ?figs? but of course there are always inside meanings, the dog whistle stuff, and this one looks as suspicious as the line in Cold Outside ??say, what?s in this drink.? If I had guests who started making requests for ?figgy pudding? I would immediately start thinking of escape strategies. I might start out with putting the dinner plates on the floor so the dog could lick them, then noting what a great dog you have found at the rescue shelter, does such a thorough job in cleaning the dishes! One need not do anything more to them after Rover finishes. Ready to server the ?figgy pudding.? But that next part, oh my goodness: We won?t go until we get some. Some. Get some. They won?t go until they get some? what? From the context, we might presume they want ?some? of that suspicious-sounding ?figgy pudding? but at this utterance, I might be resorting to faking a seizure and having the ambulance rescue me from these ?figgy pudding? demanders. But really, it is your own damn fault. Where did you meet these ?figgy pudding? people? In a singles bar? Why do you trust them enough to have them in your home to start with? Did you know about their orientation toward ?figgy pudding? and did you check their arrest records, sex offender status or any of that? NO! You just brought the creepy weirdos over now they are all yours until you accidentally spill radioactive waste in your home or report that Rover the dishwasher has come back with a positive rabies result or something, and this is what you get! But I digress. Merry Newtonmas to all my friends on ExI! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 17:29:23 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:29:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Taking your statement literally: you close your eyes and remember red. I can close mine and 'see' red or any other color or shape or person etc. Do you not? bill w On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 10:08 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 9:17 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Brent: > > *> I Completely agree with everything else you are saying including what >> you are saying about volition, choice?, You?ve even converted me to the >> camp that says the term AGI is bad. Long live the term AI!* >> > > So we true believers must band together and punish the AGI heretics who > deface the sacred name of AI and....sorry sorry.... I get a little carried > away sometimes. > > >> ?I don't see how such a neural ponytail could falsify solipsism? >> >> >> >> *> Are you saying that the left hemisphere of your brain does not know, >> absolutely, that it is NOT the only hemisphere in existence? * >> > > Yes. Homo sapiens existed for at least a 100 thousand years before they > consciously knew the brain was important much less that the brain had > hemispheres; the ancient Egyptians carefully preserved every organ in the > body EXCEPT for the brain which they thought was just humdrum packing > material that did nothing but hinder the mummification process, so they > pulled the brain out of the head through the nostrils with an iron hook and > discarded the resulting mess. Alcor is somewhat more careful because we've > learned over the centuries but it hasn't been easy because the brain does > not come with any built in knowledge about the brain. > > And unless your corpus callosum that connects your brain hemispheres has > been surgically severed your left hemispheres does not currently know what > it would be like to be a left hemisphere unconnected to the right > hemisphere. > > >> > These twins >> >> know, directly and absolutely that their twin?s brain and consciousness >> exist, don?t you think? >> > > I don't know, it depends on how large the bandwidth between the 2 brains > is. I know a little (a very little) about how your brain works just by the > trickle of information that comes from your Emails, but if our brains were > linked by a fiber optic cable of huge capacity and we were close enough > that signal delays were not important and if every thought you had I had, > and every thought I had you had, it would be meaningless to say that you > and I were 2 seperate people. I don't know the details of the twin's case > but I doubt the bandwidth is that large. > > >> >> ?you wouldn't be Brent Allsop anymore, you'd be John Clark.? >> >> >> >> *> When I?m talking about effing the ineffable, I?m only talking about at >> the elemental redness level,* >> > > When I close my eyes I can remember what redness is like, when the > Clark/Allsop hybrid closes his eyes he remembers something called redness > but is he remembering Clark's redness or Allsop's redness or neither? > Perhaps he's remembering both, perhaps what Clark would call red Allsop > would call green, so when the Clark/Allsop hybrid is thinking about "red" > he is thinking about yellow. > > > *It?s as simple as the abstract word red isn?t red. You need a >> dictionary to know what red means. * >> > > You can find out what the wavelength of red is from one but nobody learns > what the qualia "redness" means from a dictionary, they learn it from > examples. Before you learned how to read somebody pointed to a tomato and > said "red" then they pointed to a strawberry and said "red", you figured > out that the two things had something in common and learned what "redness" > signified. A AI would also learn from examples not from a dictionary. > Dictionaries and definitions are just not fundamentally important, all > definitions in a dictionary are made of words that all have definitions > also made of words and round and round we go. The only thing that can break > out of that infinite loop and give meaning to language is examples, > somebody points to a tall green thing and says "tree" and you get the idea. > > >> > I can't see how Darwinian Evolution managed to come up with a conscious >>> creature like me >>> >> > > >> *> Darwinian evolution decided to run your consciousness directly on >> physical qualities,* >> > > Why does Darwinian evolution care about consciousness or even know that > such a thing exists? > > >> * > because it is more efficient and it didn?t need the extra hardware >> required to make you substrate independent.* >> > > So you think it would be difficult to make a super intelligent computer > that was NOT conscious but easier to make a super intelligent computer > that WAS conscious. So by Occam's razor if you ever run across a super > intelligent computer your default position should be that it is conscious, > and you'd better hope the AI feels the same way about 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 atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 17:57:53 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 09:57:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] newtonmas songs again In-Reply-To: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> References: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 9:01 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In our era of heightened awareness, we are already scrutinizing the Dean > Martin classic Baby It?s Cold Out There, which durn well does sound like > some sleazeball has given his guest a date rape drug, which takes effect > during the song, and that he or she has nefarious plans for him or her. > > Not sure about date rape (as opposed to mere alcohol), but yeah, the lyrics as is would have a more difficult time finding acceptance in modern culture. But that next part, oh my goodness: We won?t go until we get some. Some. > Get some. They won?t go until they get some? what? From the context, we > might presume they want ?some? of that suspicious-sounding ?figgy pudding? > but at this utterance, I might be resorting to faking a seizure and having > the ambulance rescue me from these ?figgy pudding? demanders. > As always with these things, one must consider the context - which in this case was England, some centuries ago. "Figgy pudding" was a common dish, and the carolers' demands were basically the poor asking for alms in a season when their needs were traditionally given more weight than in the rest of the year. https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/what-the-heck-is-figgy-pudding-and-why-do-we-sing-about-it/ has more info. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 18:00:35 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:00:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:32 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Taking your statement literally: you close your eyes and remember red. > I can close mine and 'see' red or any other color or shape or person etc. > If you had no eyes or lived in pitch darkness all your life you wouldn't see or remember red. *> Do you not? bill w* > No, they're different sensations. I can tell the difference between seeing something and remembering something and I'm very glad I can because otherwise I'd get hopelessly confused. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 20 18:42:11 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 10:42:11 -0800 Subject: [ExI] newtonmas songs again In-Reply-To: References: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002001d5b765$3173f300$945bd900$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat But that next part, oh my goodness: We won?t go until we get some. Some. Get some. They won?t go until they get some? what? From the context, we might presume they want ?some? of that suspicious-sounding ?figgy pudding? but at this utterance, I might be resorting to faking a seizure and having the ambulance rescue me from these ?figgy pudding? demanders. >?As always with these things, one must consider the context - which in this case was England, some centuries ago. "Figgy pudding" was a common dish, and the carolers' demands were basically the poor asking for alms in a season when their needs were traditionally given more weight than in the rest of the year. https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/what-the-heck-is-figgy-pudding-and-why-do-we-sing-about-it/ has more info. So we are told Adrian, but in our age of heightened awareness, we see through the thin veneer. Those Newtonmas songs are full of stuff that escapes the modern awareness, misheard lyrics and such. Consider for instance the Jose Feliciano classic which is in a mixture of English and what is commonly misreported as Spanish. The line Feliz Navidad prospero ano y Felicidad is not Spanish at all in reality, and has nothing to do with wishing anyone prosperous year or any of that. In reality, Feliziano is singing in a mixture of English and his real second language Fulani Swahili. Of course there are so few speakers of the obscure dialect Fulani Swahili, the listeners read into it the Spanish rather than the mixture often referred to as Swahenglish, and hear something about seasons greetings. The real meaning is about unwanted figgy-pudding-demanding guests, cornered by Cujo the rabid dishwasher, snarling and snapping as they desperately try to negotiate with him to not tear them a bloody new asshole. The real translation of the Swahenglish is not: Feliz Navidad prospero ano y Felicidad but rather is really more along the lines of: Please naughty dog, I prosper with the ass I had. Of course neither Spain nor England wants to admit any of this, so we get this pleasant cover story about mysterious but suspicious-sounding fig-based confections no one ever heard of wishes for prosperous new year and all that. But you already knew this was going to happen, ja? Every year, the same thing, spike desperately struggling to inform his young friends about the real meanings of the songs. It?s my civic duty, you?re welcome. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 19:23:19 2019 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 12:23:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] newtonmas songs again In-Reply-To: <002001d5b765$3173f300$945bd900$@rainier66.com> References: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> <002001d5b765$3173f300$945bd900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: "Pudding" is a generic English term for "dessert food". "Figgy" is an adjective - like unto or containing figs. The singers are making a rambunctious demand for fig-based dessert pie. The emphaticness of this demand, and the associated threat, is sufficiently hyperbolic and outside middle- and upper-class social norms of the period that it would have been understood as over-the-top absurd humor by the original audience, and taken as such. The current literary vogue of "death of the author" nothwithstanding, a lot of works become much more comprehensible when read in their original context. Of course, you can't make a career as a professor of English literature if you do that, so it's pretty unpopular in academia. :) On Fri, Dec 20, 2019, 11:44 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > > > > But that next part, oh my goodness: We won?t go until we get some. Some. > Get some. They won?t go until they get some? what? From the context, we > might presume they want ?some? of that suspicious-sounding ?figgy pudding? > but at this utterance, I might be resorting to faking a seizure and having > the ambulance rescue me from these ?figgy pudding? demanders. > > > > >?As always with these things, one must consider the context - which in > this case was England, some centuries ago. "Figgy pudding" was a common > dish, and the carolers' demands were basically the poor asking for alms in > a season when their needs were traditionally given more weight than in the > rest of the year. > https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/what-the-heck-is-figgy-pudding-and-why-do-we-sing-about-it/ has > more info. > > > > > > > > So we are told Adrian, but in our age of heightened awareness, we see > through the thin veneer. Those Newtonmas songs are full of stuff that > escapes the modern awareness, misheard lyrics and such. Consider for > instance the Jose Feliciano classic which is in a mixture of English and > what is commonly misreported as Spanish. The line > > > > Feliz Navidad prospero ano y Felicidad > > > > is not Spanish at all in reality, and has nothing to do with wishing > anyone prosperous year or any of that. In reality, Feliziano is singing in > a mixture of English and his real second language Fulani Swahili. Of > course there are so few speakers of the obscure dialect Fulani Swahili, the > listeners read into it the Spanish rather than the mixture often referred > to as Swahenglish, and hear something about seasons greetings. The real > meaning is about unwanted figgy-pudding-demanding guests, cornered by Cujo > the rabid dishwasher, snarling and snapping as they desperately try to > negotiate with him to not tear them a bloody new asshole. > > > > The real translation of the Swahenglish is not: > > > > Feliz Navidad prospero ano y Felicidad > > > > but rather is really more along the lines of: > > > > Please naughty dog, I prosper with the ass I had. > > > > Of course neither Spain nor England wants to admit any of this, so we get > this pleasant cover story about mysterious but suspicious-sounding > fig-based confections no one ever heard of wishes for prosperous new year > and all that. > > > > But you already knew this was going to happen, ja? Every year, the same > thing, spike desperately struggling to inform his young friends about the > real meanings of the songs. It?s my civic duty, you?re welcome. > > > > 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 Dec 20 19:51:51 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 11:51:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] newtonmas songs again In-Reply-To: References: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> <002001d5b765$3173f300$945bd900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003a01d5b76e$ece73a80$c6b5af80$@rainier66.com> From: Darin Sunley Subject: Re: [ExI] newtonmas songs again "Pudding" is a generic English term for "dessert food". "Figgy" is an adjective - like unto or containing figs. ? >?The current literary vogue of "death of the author" nothwithstanding, a lot of works become much more comprehensible when read in their original context? This worries me Darin. How are we to prevent the context of our current songs from being lost? How shall we explain to future generations that Feliz Navidad? was actually a desperate attempt on the part of unwanted figgy-devouring guests to escape the death-dealing mandibles of Cujo the rabid dish-licking dog? I?ll tell you the real problem: people accept everything they see on the internet. They read how people present themselves on the ?Face Book? and accept it as is, resulting in their being burdened with figgy-demanding interlopers. Darin I am just doing my part to warn the unwary. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 20:22:19 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:22:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you had no eyes or lived in pitch darkness all your life you wouldn't see or remember red. john LOL!!! Or if I never lived, or lived at the bottom of the sea...... I do see things when I close my eyes, though the images are faint, not even as strong as those in dreams. The strongest images I have ever had while asleep were from ether dreams at age 6 and 9. (note - having an operation under ether probably produces images different from those in ordinary sleep - different in the sense that the eeg waves were probably not the same as the ones in the ordinary sleep stages) bill w On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:09 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:32 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Taking your statement literally: you close your eyes and remember >> red. I can close mine and 'see' red or any other color or shape or person >> etc. >> > > If you had no eyes or lived in pitch darkness all your life you wouldn't > see or remember red. > > *> Do you not? bill w* >> > > No, they're different sensations. I can tell the difference between seeing > something and remembering something and I'm very glad I can because > otherwise I'd get hopelessly confused. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 20:26:53 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:26:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] newtonmas songs again In-Reply-To: <003a01d5b76e$ece73a80$c6b5af80$@rainier66.com> References: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> <002001d5b765$3173f300$945bd900$@rainier66.com> <003a01d5b76e$ece73a80$c6b5af80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: What?! How are we to go on living when we cannot believe what we read on Facebook? Are they trying to undermine the entire basis of reality? bill w On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:54 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* Darin Sunley > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] newtonmas songs again > > > > "Pudding" is a generic English term for "dessert food". > > > > "Figgy" is an adjective - like unto or containing figs. > > > > ? > > > > >?The current literary vogue of "death of the author" nothwithstanding, a > lot of works become much more comprehensible when read in their original > context? > > > > > > > > > > This worries me Darin. How are we to prevent the context of our current > songs from being lost? How shall we explain to future generations that > Feliz Navidad? was actually a desperate attempt on the part of unwanted > figgy-devouring guests to escape the death-dealing mandibles of Cujo the > rabid dish-licking dog? > > > > I?ll tell you the real problem: people accept everything they see on the > internet. They read how people present themselves on the ?Face Book? and > accept it as is, resulting in their being burdened with figgy-demanding > interlopers. > > > > Darin I am just doing my part to warn the unwary. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 20:27:54 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:27:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I?m on William?s side with this one, and so glad William is calling John out on this. The fact that John is conflating an elemental redness quale with a very different memory of red shows he doesn?t yet fully understand what an elemental redness quale is, and how this must be physically very different then the memory of such. On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:23 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > If you had no eyes or lived in pitch darkness all your life you wouldn't > see or remember red. john > > LOL!!! Or if I never lived, or lived at the bottom of the sea...... > > I do see things when I close my eyes, though the images are faint, not > even as strong as those in dreams. The strongest images I have ever had > while asleep were from ether dreams at age 6 and 9. (note - having an > operation under ether probably produces images different from those in > ordinary sleep - different in the sense that the eeg waves were probably > not the same as the ones in the ordinary sleep stages) > > bill w > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:09 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 12:32 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > Taking your statement literally: you close your eyes and remember >>> red. I can close mine and 'see' red or any other color or shape or person >>> etc. >>> >> >> If you had no eyes or lived in pitch darkness all your life you wouldn't >> see or remember red. >> >> *> Do you not? bill w* >>> >> >> No, they're different sensations. I can tell the difference between >> seeing something and remembering something and I'm very glad I can because >> otherwise I'd get hopelessly confused. >> >> John K Clark >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 21:04:43 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 15:04:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] gabapentin Message-ID: Go to People's Pharmacy (I do daily -registered pharmacist and physiology doctorate team) and read about this drug, which my doctor prescribed for me and my wife's doctor for her. For me it was like beta blockers - blew my mind - could not function. For my wife - hallucinations For many people even worse, like suicide. I do not know why this drug is now so popular with physicians, but the side effects are very numerous and frightening. We are lucky to have experienced rather safe ones. Rafal? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 21:40:05 2019 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:40:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] gabapentin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is a very good medication for neurological pain. And epilepsy. As all drugs with actual effect, there are side effects and since gabapentin works in nerves, the side effects are mostly neurological. It is not for everyone but for quite a few with nerve releated pain it is the bees knees indeed. /Henrik Den fre 20 dec. 2019 22:08William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: > Go to People's Pharmacy (I do daily -registered pharmacist and physiology > doctorate team) and read about this drug, which my doctor prescribed for me > and my wife's doctor for her. > > For me it was like beta blockers - blew my mind - could not function. > > For my wife - hallucinations > > For many people even worse, like suicide. > > I do not know why this drug is now so popular with physicians, but the > side effects are very numerous and frightening. We are lucky to have > experienced rather safe ones. > > Rafal? > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 20 21:56:56 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 13:56:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] newtonmas songs again In-Reply-To: References: <005501d5b756$a0ee2610$e2ca7230$@rainier66.com> <002001d5b765$3173f300$945bd900$@rainier66.com> <003a01d5b76e$ece73a80$c6b5af80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005201d5b780$65bf4b30$313de190$@rainier66.com> >>?"Pudding" is a generic English term for "dessert food". From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] newtonmas songs again >?What?! How are we to go on living when we cannot believe what we read on Facebook? >?Are they trying to undermine the entire basis of reality? bill w BillW, it isn?t just the misinformation on the internet, but also the vast expanses of knowledge that the ?Face Book? does not know. Do let my offer the benefit of my years, me lad. Let us take first this claim that pudding is some generic English term for dessert food. Partially right is this, but in fact the usage was coined by Dickens who made sly references to it in his later, more respectable years. The ?Face Book? does not know that Dickens got his start as a best-selling author with porno, describing an innovative but painful act which came to bear his name from the early titillating pulp-novels he published to make a living on his way to the top. The ?Face Book? is completely unaware of the shocking act it refers to when it says something ?hurts like the Dickens.? Perhaps you yourself have used the term, never realizing the pain levels associated with the act of doing the Dickens, or misused the term referring to a different orifice hurting like the Dickens. I myself have never attempted it, opting instead for the safer, more traditional means of gratification, one that does not require that whole ?figgy pudding? business. BillW, in the spirit of charity in this Newtonmas season, I am hoping to educate you younger generation with your ?Face Book? and all its appalling lack of common knowledge of early Industrial Age English practices. Often when I try to tell these things to the young, they don?t believe me. I try. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 21:58:00 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 14:58:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis, If it isn?t a physical property, then the best it could be is: ?A miracle happens here?. That alone (along with all the other resulting ?hard? problems) proves to me you?ve got a mistake somewhere in your logic. And given how detailed I describe the problem with this logic, I don?t understand how you can?t see this. Pluss splitting everting into just A, B, and C is so far aware from any qualia, and what qualia are is completely irrelevant. As I?ve tried to point out repeatedly, you not including the required functionality. You?ve got to include the colorness functionality (redness, greenness?) in the system,, and finally a binding mechanism which can computationally bind colorness together, so you can have a composite qualitative experience composed of lots of them. So, let?s assume your B performs the required binding functionality. You said a and b could be ?Chemical Signals.? We can throw out b because that is causally way downstream from the qualia pixels elements we can both objectively observe and consciously be directly aware of, would be aware of, presenting to a binding system. a must be whatever it is that is the colorness quale (redness, greenness?.) we can detect by being aware of its quality computationally bound to lots of other pixels of colorness. I say colorness, a, is a physical property, evidently you think a is just magic. And there must be more than just B(a). Since we can have at least 10s of thousands of pixels of awareness for each pixel on a surface we can see. So it must be B(a1, a2, a3?. aN) Where n is at least tens of thousands of elemental ?magic? qualities which can be bound into one unified conscious experience by B. A required functionality of binding mechanism B is the ability to recognize physical (or magic) red. If it is glutamate that has the redness quality we can directly experience, B (and B1) must be able to report being aware that anything but glutamate (or redness or magic) being presented to any aN must be able to report, by being aware of that physical or qualitative (or magic?) difference, that it is not glutamate. If it can?t do that, then it isn?t functioning properly. Also, if you are able to do some kind of substitution from B to B1, you must be able to use B1, to bind to the neuro substituted system, so you can be computationally aware of whether it is using glutamate, glycine, 1s, or 0s (or whatever redness or greenness magic you are thinking of.) If you provide the computational binding system which can do all of the above required functionality including the colorness (whether magic or physical) there will be no ?hard? problems. If you can describe such a sufficient system that has any other problems than an approachable color problem, I will join the functionalist camp. You seem to have constructed your argument in such a way that nothing will falsify your thinking that colorness must be magic, resulting in all the 'hard' problems chalmers has become famous for? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stathis Papaioannou Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 9:12 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Chalmers To: Brent Allsop On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 09:39, Brent Allsop wrote: > But if the argument contains a mistake of logic or slight of hand > , then > this argument for functionalism is falsified, resulting in it being more > likely that functionalism IS probably wrong? > If functionalism is wrong then it means that your qualia could change radically and you wouldn?t notice, which seems absurd. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 22:29:57 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:29:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 3:39 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I?m on William?s side with this one, and so glad William is calling John > out on this. The fact that John is conflating an elemental redness quale > with a very different memory of red* > Huh?! I specifically said "they're different sensations" and I said I could tell the difference between them, it was Bill not me who said he could "see" memories like red; and if that's true I wondered when he "sees" something how he avoided confusion. When Bill "sees" red how does he know if he is viewing red with his eyes right now or remembering red that he viewed last year? Is Bill lost in time like Billy Pilgrim in Kurt Vonnegut's novel Slaughterhouse-Five? > > *shows he doesn?t yet fully understand what an elemental redness quale > is, and how this must be physically very different then the memory of such.* > Oh for heaven's sake! Brent, it's not as if we're talking about something very deep here, is there anyone on the surface of the planet so obtuse that he doesn't understand the difference between objective electromagnetic waves with a wavelength of 680 nanometers and the subjective quale red? I'm no genius but I'm smart enough to know that, and I have the ability to tell the difference between a vision and a memory too as does everybody else this side of a looney bin. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 23:05:58 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:05:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:06 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> If it isn?t a physical property, then the best it could be is: ?A > miracle happens here?.* In a way that's true. There are only 2 possibilities, a chain of "how did that happen?" questions either goes on forever like a infinitely complex matryoshka doll or the questions eventually terminate with a brute fact, and it's meaningless to ask how a brute fact does what it does. If you want to call that a miracle so be it. If you ask "how does consciousness work?" I'll say by means of A, if you ask how does A work I'll say by means of B, but I don't think this chain of questions goes on forever, I think eventually you'll come to the end of the line at Z, and Z is the brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed in intelligent ways. You may not like that answer but it's better than no answer at all which is exactly what you'll get if the chain goes on forever. And if you ask for definitions of "processed" or "intelligent" I will not provide them, instead of generating more words I will give you something much better, I will point to examples. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 23:13:36 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:13:36 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 09:06, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Stathis, > > > If it isn?t a physical property, then the best it could be is: ?A miracle > happens here?. That alone (along with all the other resulting ?hard? > problems) proves to me you?ve got a mistake somewhere in your logic. And > given how detailed I describe the problem with this logic, I don?t > understand how you can?t see this. > > > > Pluss splitting everting into just A, B, and C is so far aware from any > qualia, and what qualia are is completely irrelevant. As I?ve tried to > point out repeatedly, you not including the required functionality. You?ve > got to include the colorness functionality (redness, greenness?) in the > system,, and finally a binding mechanism which can computationally bind > colorness together, so you can have a composite qualitative experience > composed of lots of them. > > > > So, let?s assume your B performs the required binding functionality. You > said a and b could be ?Chemical Signals.? We can throw out b because that > is causally way downstream from the qualia pixels elements we can both > objectively observe and consciously be directly aware of, would be aware > of, presenting to a binding system. a must be whatever it is that is the > colorness quale (redness, greenness?.) we can detect by being aware of its > quality computationally bound to lots of other pixels of colorness. I say > colorness, a, is a physical property, evidently you think a is just magic. > And there must be more than just B(a). Since we can have at least 10s of > thousands of pixels of awareness for each pixel on a surface we can see. > So it must be B(a1, a2, a3?. aN) Where n is at least tens of thousands of > elemental ?magic? qualities which can be bound into one unified conscious > experience by B. > > > > A required functionality of binding mechanism B is the ability to > recognize physical (or magic) red. If it is glutamate that has the redness > quality we can directly experience, B (and B1) must be able to report being > aware that anything but glutamate (or redness or magic) being presented to > any aN must be able to report, by being aware of that physical or > qualitative (or magic?) difference, that it is not glutamate. If it can?t > do that, then it isn?t functioning properly. > > > > Also, if you are able to do some kind of substitution from B to B1, you > must be able to use B1, to bind to the neuro substituted system, so you can > be computationally aware of whether it is using glutamate, glycine, 1s, or > 0s (or whatever redness or greenness magic you are thinking of.) > > > > If you provide the computational binding system which can do all of the > above required functionality including the colorness (whether magic or > physical) there will be no ?hard? problems. If you can describe such a > sufficient system that has any other problems than an approachable color > problem, I will join the functionalist camp. > > > You seem to have constructed your argument in such a way that nothing will > falsify your thinking that colorness must be magic, resulting in all the > 'hard' problems chalmers has become famous for? > Qualia are not necessarily magic if they are not physical properties. You can chop down a tree with an axe made of steel but "chopping down a tree" is not a physical property of the steel, it is a process that can also occur with an axe made of a different material, such as titanium or tungsten. This does not mean that "chopping down a tree" is magic! With regard to my A, B, C system it is important to emphasise that the scientist can be COMPLETELY IGNORANT of any consciousness and still repair or replace its components, simply by observing its behaviour. I might not know anything about how a computer works or what a computer does, but I could still replace wiring in the computer by soldering in new wires, and I would expect that it would continue working the same. All I have to do is test the electrical properties of the wire, make sure the replacement has a similar resistance and is able to carry at least the same current, make sure it is insulated appropriately for the voltage, and so on. For completeness I could swap it in and out of circuit and make sure that the inputs and outputs are the same. With my example, all the scientist has to do is find a replacement B1 such that B1(a) = B(a) for all inputs a. He does not have to know anything whatsoever about qualia, binding or pixels. If he does this, the output of the system (speech, in this case) given a particular input MUST be the same. Do you disagree with this? -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 23:29:44 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:29:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So you take a module that correctly says (outputs) that the one on the left is red and the one on the right is green. Then you swap that with an inverted qualia version of the same. It produces the same output. Then you swap that one with an abstracted away from physics version (i.e. 1=red, 0=green), and again it has the same output. Now, you take the binding mechanism used in them and connect them all together, so it is all one unified consciousness all computationally bound. This system says: Yep, the second one is qualia inverted from the first, and so on. If you cannot reproduce all of that functionality with what you have provided, then it isn?t a functionally equivalent system, right? On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:20 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 09:06, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Stathis, >> >> >> If it isn?t a physical property, then the best it could be is: ?A miracle >> happens here?. That alone (along with all the other resulting ?hard? >> problems) proves to me you?ve got a mistake somewhere in your logic. And >> given how detailed I describe the problem with this logic, I don?t >> understand how you can?t see this. >> >> >> >> Pluss splitting everting into just A, B, and C is so far aware from any >> qualia, and what qualia are is completely irrelevant. As I?ve tried to >> point out repeatedly, you not including the required functionality. You?ve >> got to include the colorness functionality (redness, greenness?) in the >> system,, and finally a binding mechanism which can computationally bind >> colorness together, so you can have a composite qualitative experience >> composed of lots of them. >> >> >> >> So, let?s assume your B performs the required binding functionality. You >> said a and b could be ?Chemical Signals.? We can throw out b because that >> is causally way downstream from the qualia pixels elements we can both >> objectively observe and consciously be directly aware of, would be aware >> of, presenting to a binding system. a must be whatever it is that is the >> colorness quale (redness, greenness?.) we can detect by being aware of its >> quality computationally bound to lots of other pixels of colorness. I say >> colorness, a, is a physical property, evidently you think a is just magic. >> And there must be more than just B(a). Since we can have at least 10s of >> thousands of pixels of awareness for each pixel on a surface we can see. >> So it must be B(a1, a2, a3?. aN) Where n is at least tens of thousands of >> elemental ?magic? qualities which can be bound into one unified conscious >> experience by B. >> >> >> >> A required functionality of binding mechanism B is the ability to >> recognize physical (or magic) red. If it is glutamate that has the redness >> quality we can directly experience, B (and B1) must be able to report being >> aware that anything but glutamate (or redness or magic) being presented to >> any aN must be able to report, by being aware of that physical or >> qualitative (or magic?) difference, that it is not glutamate. If it can?t >> do that, then it isn?t functioning properly. >> >> >> >> Also, if you are able to do some kind of substitution from B to B1, you >> must be able to use B1, to bind to the neuro substituted system, so you can >> be computationally aware of whether it is using glutamate, glycine, 1s, or >> 0s (or whatever redness or greenness magic you are thinking of.) >> >> >> >> If you provide the computational binding system which can do all of the >> above required functionality including the colorness (whether magic or >> physical) there will be no ?hard? problems. If you can describe such a >> sufficient system that has any other problems than an approachable color >> problem, I will join the functionalist camp. >> >> >> You seem to have constructed your argument in such a way that nothing >> will falsify your thinking that colorness must be magic, resulting in all >> the 'hard' problems chalmers has become famous for? >> > > Qualia are not necessarily magic if they are not physical properties. You > can chop down a tree with an axe made of steel but "chopping down a tree" > is not a physical property of the steel, it is a process that can also > occur with an axe made of a different material, such as titanium or > tungsten. This does not mean that "chopping down a tree" is magic! > > With regard to my A, B, C system it is important to emphasise that the > scientist can be COMPLETELY IGNORANT of any consciousness and still repair > or replace its components, simply by observing its behaviour. I might not > know anything about how a computer works or what a computer does, but I > could still replace wiring in the computer by soldering in new wires, and I > would expect that it would continue working the same. All I have to do is > test the electrical properties of the wire, make sure the replacement has a > similar resistance and is able to carry at least the same current, make > sure it is insulated appropriately for the voltage, and so on. For > completeness I could swap it in and out of circuit and make sure that the > inputs and outputs are the same. With my example, all the scientist has to > do is find a replacement B1 such that B1(a) = B(a) for all inputs a. He > does not have to know anything whatsoever about qualia, binding or pixels. > If he does this, the output of the system (speech, in this case) given a > particular input MUST be the same. Do you disagree with this? > > -- > 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 avant at sollegro.com Sat Dec 21 00:53:40 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 16:53:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Catalog of missing stars Message-ID: <20191220165340.Horde._pdMHvkN1kfGCIz8Y6S125t@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> VASCO, the Vanishing and Appearing Sources over a Century of Observation project is an astronomical study that conducted by Beatriz Villaroel et. al. Its purpose was to compare USNO star surveys from the 1950s to modern star surveys like GAIA to look for stars that have appeared or disappeared over the last century. After screening over 150,000 possible candidates for artifacts or errors, the survey has found approximately 100 confirmed stars (existing in two or more photographs from last century) that have mysteriously vanished from the sky this century. https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/stellar-mystery-how-could-100-stars-just-vanish-180973821/?fbclid=IwAR1KYsyUvB0_oL8vz4TZg7V7_OGGyGSi8ECCQHCFotb1_eGQgrYXhxp-wIQ https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.05068.pdf So what's going on here: alien megastructures? glitch in the simulation? magic? Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 02:13:24 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019 21:13:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:32 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> So you take a module that correctly says (outputs) that the one on the > left is red and the one on the right is green. Then you swap that with an > inverted qualia version of the same. It produces the same output.* > In the first case 1 corresponds to the color of a ripe tomato and 0 corresponds to the color of a leaf, so if you invert the qualia then 1 corresponds to the color of a leaf and 0 corresponds to the color of a tomato, if it's then shown 2 wires and asked to point to the one that is the color of a tomato and the one that is the color of a leaf the output is exactly the same as before the inversion and the functionality identical. And as far as experiencing qualia is concerned no subjective change has been made at all, unless it was told as long as the naming convention had been updated in it's memory the AI couldn't even tell that a change or any sort had happened. In fact the conscious AI may not know anything about zeros and ones, it might know as little about how computers work as we know about how the biochemistry of the brain works. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 13:57:02 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 08:57:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead Message-ID: Although it comes as no surprise yesterday it became official, Jason Momoa (aka Aquaman) has won and destroyed the largest telescope in the northern hemisphere rendering us blind to the most distant objects that exist in half of the universe, and all because of an invisible man who hates telescopes and lives at one of the 3 best observing sites on planet Earth and the only one in the northern hemisphere. Not exactly a triumph of rationality or a day the human race can be proud of. Even though the telescope's suporters won every court battle the power of Aquaman proved to be just too strong, the Governor of Hawaii said the telescope "would not be proceeding with construction at this time". The Governor also said "law enforcement will be removed from the site" apparently thinking that now that they've won the protestors will just go home. I hope he's right but, although nowhere near the thirty meter category, that mountain still has the largest telescopes in the northern hemisphere, and the entire observatory was shut down for over a month because the astronomers feared for their lives, and now that the mob has tasted blood I don't know what's going to happen. I do know that if I was an astronomer on that mountain I'd be scared right now. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 17:00:13 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:00:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for this version, Stathis. I think I can better understand and work with this. I think the problem is you are only talking about functionality. There must also be something in the system that instantiates the data coming from the senses. There must be something, physical, that is the knowledge that will control whether we want to pick the strawberry or not. In an abstract system there is a dictionary that maps a 1 to both the word ?red? (what to say) and ?ripe? (the strawberries to pick). The what to pick functionality is driven or specified, based on these dictionaries. In the glutamate version of the system, there must be a dictionary that maps the glutamate to the 1. And in order for the physically different hardware instantiation to work, this dictionary must be changed to map glycine to 1 ? so the system that knows we want to pick the 1 strawberries (as John was saying) can work, in a substrate independent way. Again, we on the other hand, run directly on physical qualities. In other words, we don?t have the additional abstraction dictionary from glutamate to 1. We instead map glutamate directly to ?red? and ?that?s the one we pick?. So, in order for the functionally different robot to be able to pick the right strawberry and say it is red, both these dictionaries need to change when the physics of knowledge change. It is now glycine that we interpret as the strawberry to pick, where as the former version definned glutamate to be knowledge of the ones to pick. You are describing two systems that are functionally the same but physically different. That is just another way to say ?3 robots that are functionally the same but qualitatively different. ? ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Stathis Papaioannou Date: Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:25 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers To: Brent Allsop Here is another, more physiological thought experiment. I notice that some neurons, when triggered, release glutamate into the synapse connecting them with other neurons. The downstream neurons have glutamate receptors, which detect the glutamate and then trigger an action potential. I have no idea what the purpose of any of this is, but I do have very advanced molecular manipulation techniques. I decide to alter all the glutamate secreting neurons so that they secrete glycine instead, and all the glutamate detecting neurons do that they have glycine receptors instead which trigger an action potential in the presence of glycine. Given this change, do you see that the brain will behave the same? Do you still think that the qualia might be different despite the brain behaving the same? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 17:41:31 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:41:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think this is a better way to say it in Stathis' language: When you change the receptors to work the same with glycine, as the former system did with glutamate, you are changing the dictionary between the physical and the functional. You are describing two system that are functionally equivalent but physically different. That is just another way to say ?3 robots that are functionally equivalent but qualitatively different .? On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 10:00 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Thanks for this version, Stathis. I think I can better understand and > work with this. > > > > I think the problem is you are only talking about functionality. There > must also be something in the system that instantiates the data coming from > the senses. There must be something, physical, that is the knowledge that > will control whether we want to pick the strawberry or not. In an abstract > system there is a dictionary that maps a 1 to both the word ?red? (what to > say) and ?ripe? (the strawberries to pick). The what to pick functionality > is driven or specified, based on these dictionaries. > > > > In the glutamate version of the system, there must be a dictionary that > maps the glutamate to the 1. And in order for the physically different > hardware instantiation to work, this dictionary must be changed to map > glycine to 1 ? so the system that knows we want to pick the 1 strawberries > (as John was saying) can work, in a substrate independent way. > > > > Again, we on the other hand, run directly on physical qualities. In other > words, we don?t have the additional abstraction dictionary from glutamate > to 1. We instead map glutamate directly to ?red? and ?that?s the one we > pick?. So, in order for the functionally different robot to be able to > pick the right strawberry and say it is red, both these dictionaries need > to change when the physics of knowledge change. It is now glycine that we > interpret as the strawberry to pick, where as the former version definned > glutamate to be knowledge of the ones to pick. > > > > You are describing two systems that are functionally the same but > physically different. That is just another way to say ?3 robots that are > functionally the same but qualitatively different. > > ? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Stathis Papaioannou > Date: Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:25 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers > To: Brent Allsop > > Here is another, more physiological thought experiment. I notice that some > neurons, when triggered, release glutamate into the synapse connecting them > with other neurons. The downstream neurons have glutamate receptors, which > detect the glutamate and then trigger an action potential. I have no idea > what the purpose of any of this is, but I do have very advanced molecular > manipulation techniques. I decide to alter all the glutamate secreting > neurons so that they secrete glycine instead, and all the glutamate > detecting neurons do that they have glycine receptors instead which trigger > an action potential in the presence of glycine. Given this change, do you > see that the brain will behave the same? Do you still think that the qualia > might be different despite the brain behaving the same? > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 21:15:19 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 08:15:19 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 at 04:02, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Thanks for this version, Stathis. I think I can better understand and > work with this. > > > > I think the problem is you are only talking about functionality. There > must also be something in the system that instantiates the data coming from > the senses. There must be something, physical, that is the knowledge that > will control whether we want to pick the strawberry or not. In an abstract > system there is a dictionary that maps a 1 to both the word ?red? (what to > say) and ?ripe? (the strawberries to pick). The what to pick functionality > is driven or specified, based on these dictionaries. > > > > In the glutamate version of the system, there must be a dictionary that > maps the glutamate to the 1. And in order for the physically different > hardware instantiation to work, this dictionary must be changed to map > glycine to 1 ? so the system that knows we want to pick the 1 strawberries > (as John was saying) can work, in a substrate independent way. > > > > Again, we on the other hand, run directly on physical qualities. In other > words, we don?t have the additional abstraction dictionary from glutamate > to 1. We instead map glutamate directly to ?red? and ?that?s the one we > pick?. So, in order for the functionally different robot to be able to > pick the right strawberry and say it is red, both these dictionaries need > to change when the physics of knowledge change. It is now glycine that we > interpret as the strawberry to pick, where as the former version definned > glutamate to be knowledge of the ones to pick. > > > > You are describing two systems that are functionally the same but > physically different. That is just another way to say ?3 robots that are > functionally the same but qualitatively different. > > ? > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: Stathis Papaioannou > Date: Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:25 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers > To: Brent Allsop > > Here is another, more physiological thought experiment. I notice that some > neurons, when triggered, release glutamate into the synapse connecting them > with other neurons. The downstream neurons have glutamate receptors, which > detect the glutamate and then trigger an action potential. I have no idea > what the purpose of any of this is, but I do have very advanced molecular > manipulation techniques. I decide to alter all the glutamate secreting > neurons so that they secrete glycine instead, and all the glutamate > detecting neurons do that they have glycine receptors instead which trigger > an action potential in the presence of glycine. Given this change, do you > see that the brain will behave the same? Do you still think that the qualia > might be different despite the brain behaving the same? > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > I understand what you are saying with the three robots example, but you are missing the problem I am presenting. 1. If glutamate is swapped for glycine and glutamate receptors for glycine receptors in half the neurons in your brain, all the neurons in your brain will continue firing in the same sequence, and all the muscles in your body will continue contracting in the same sequence. 2. If qualia were dependent on a particular substrate, such as red requires glutamate and green requires glycine, the change in (1) would result in a change in qualia. Something that was previously all red would now look partly red and partly green, or perhaps a new colour combining red and green. 3. But if all the muscles in your body are contracting in the same sequence, you will say that everything looks exactly the same as before. 4. How can your qualia radically change but you either do not notice the change or cannot communicate that there has been a change? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sat Dec 21 22:19:54 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:19:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting John Clark: > Although it comes as no surprise yesterday it became official, Jason Momoa > (aka Aquaman) has won and destroyed the largest telescope in the northern > hemisphere rendering us blind to the most distant objects that exist in > half of the universe, and all because of an invisible man who hates > telescopes and lives at one of the 3 best observing sites on planet Earth > and the only one in the northern hemisphere. Not exactly a triumph of > rationality or a day the human race can be proud of. > > Even though the telescope's suporters won every court battle the power of > Aquaman proved to be just too strong, the Governor of Hawaii said the > telescope "would not be proceeding with construction at this time". The > Governor also said "law enforcement will be removed from the site" > apparently thinking that now that they've won the protestors will just go > home. I hope he's right but, although nowhere near the thirty meter > category, that mountain still has the largest telescopes in the northern > hemisphere, and the entire observatory was shut down for over a month > because the astronomers feared for their lives, and now that the mob has > tasted blood I don't know what's going to happen. I do know that if I was > an astronomer on that mountain I'd be scared right now. This is especially troubling considering that we have stars disappearing. We need that telescope for national if not planetary security. I also agree with what Adrian Tymes said in another thread that we need to start putting observatories everywhere, including the dark side of the moon. Stuart LaForge From atymes at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 22:33:43 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 14:33:43 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 2:21 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This is especially troubling considering that we have stars > disappearing. We need that telescope for national if not planetary > security. I also agree with what Adrian Tymes said in another thread > that we need to start putting observatories everywhere, including the > dark side of the moon. > Heck, with the team & tools I have available to me (via CubeCab) right now...the TMT's budget was about $2B to put together, right? I dare say that I could put together a thirty meter diameter telescope, in low Earth orbit (thus, above all the atmospheric distortions), for $200M: a tenth the budget of the TMT. (This would be a synthetic aperture array, of 3U CubeSats launched one at a time and plugging together, getting individual systems checks done on the first several satellites (with a smaller diameter) before scaling up. 30 cm long per satellite means 100 units for X, 100 units for Y, and more - probably no more than double - for the antenna & power. 400 units is $100M in launch costs, leaving the remaining $100M for development, manufacturing, and other miscellaneous costs. This would not include running the array for long, but then, neither did the $2B budget.) But there doesn't seem to be a way for me to even propose this to the people who have that budget, let alone for said proposal to have a serious chance of funding. Granted, this wouldn't mean spending $2B on Hawaii - which may be the main disconnect. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 00:19:38 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 18:19:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] wired Message-ID: Digital plus print - $5 no-brainer bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 00:20:43 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:20:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stathis: 1. If glutamate is swapped for glycine and glutamate receptors for glycine receptors in half the neurons in your brain, all the neurons in your brain will continue firing in the same sequence, and all the muscles in your body will continue contracting in the same sequence. This is where you are problematically removing the binding system that is directly aware of what glutamate is functionally like and how glycine functionality is physically different. You must have the ability to computationally bind thousands of pixels made up of half glutamate strawberry and half glycine leaves, and these are all computationally bound together so you can be aware of all of them at the same time. When you remove this ability to distinguish between two different physical representations in this way, the fading/dancing problems come up. Where in this system you are describing is the ability to be aware of redness, which includes the ability to say that anything other than redness is not redness? No matter where I add this functionality, you always remove it with this anti binding system mistaken way. And of course, when you make these kinds of logical mistakes, problems like ?fading?/?dancing? qualia emerge. If you include that functionality, it becomes obvious how everything just works, and this ?fading?/?dancing? problem is just irrelevant. No matter how many times I say you need to provide this ability to detect only redness, and nothing else, you just continue to say that doesn?t matter. And the fact that you say that is proof that you aren't yet thinking of it the right way. This mistake is the cause of all the fading/dancing problems. The fact that you keep asserting this doesn?t matter just proves you are not thinking about qualia in the right way. You must include an ability to know when something has physically (or magically, or functionally) changed. If you provide there, there will be no "hard" problems. On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 2:17 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 at 04:02, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Thanks for this version, Stathis. I think I can better understand and >> work with this. >> >> >> >> I think the problem is you are only talking about functionality. There >> must also be something in the system that instantiates the data coming from >> the senses. There must be something, physical, that is the knowledge that >> will control whether we want to pick the strawberry or not. In an abstract >> system there is a dictionary that maps a 1 to both the word ?red? (what to >> say) and ?ripe? (the strawberries to pick). The what to pick functionality >> is driven or specified, based on these dictionaries. >> >> >> >> In the glutamate version of the system, there must be a dictionary that >> maps the glutamate to the 1. And in order for the physically different >> hardware instantiation to work, this dictionary must be changed to map >> glycine to 1 ? so the system that knows we want to pick the 1 strawberries >> (as John was saying) can work, in a substrate independent way. >> >> >> >> Again, we on the other hand, run directly on physical qualities. In >> other words, we don?t have the additional abstraction dictionary from >> glutamate to 1. We instead map glutamate directly to ?red? and ?that?s the >> one we pick?. So, in order for the functionally different robot to be able >> to pick the right strawberry and say it is red, both these dictionaries >> need to change when the physics of knowledge change. It is now glycine >> that we interpret as the strawberry to pick, where as the former version >> definned glutamate to be knowledge of the ones to pick. >> >> >> >> You are describing two systems that are functionally the same but >> physically different. That is just another way to say ?3 robots that >> are functionally the same but qualitatively different. >> >> ? >> >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: Stathis Papaioannou >> Date: Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 5:25 PM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: Chalmers >> To: Brent Allsop >> >> Here is another, more physiological thought experiment. I notice that >> some neurons, when triggered, release glutamate into the synapse connecting >> them with other neurons. The downstream neurons have glutamate receptors, >> which detect the glutamate and then trigger an action potential. I have no >> idea what the purpose of any of this is, but I do have very advanced >> molecular manipulation techniques. I decide to alter all the glutamate >> secreting neurons so that they secrete glycine instead, and all the >> glutamate detecting neurons do that they have glycine receptors instead >> which trigger an action potential in the presence of glycine. Given this >> change, do you see that the brain will behave the same? Do you still think >> that the qualia might be different despite the brain behaving the same? >> >>> -- >> Stathis Papaioannou >> > > I understand what you are saying with the three robots example, but you > are missing the problem I am presenting. > > 1. If glutamate is swapped for glycine and glutamate receptors for glycine > receptors in half the neurons in your brain, all the neurons in your brain > will continue firing in the same sequence, and all the muscles in your body > will continue contracting in the same sequence. > > 2. If qualia were dependent on a particular substrate, such as red > requires glutamate and green requires glycine, the change in (1) would > result in a change in qualia. Something that was previously all red would > now look partly red and partly green, or perhaps a new colour combining red > and green. > > 3. But if all the muscles in your body are contracting in the same > sequence, you will say that everything looks exactly the same as before. > > 4. How can your qualia radically change but you either do not notice the > change or cannot communicate that there has been a change? > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 02:20:19 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 19:20:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think we are just talking past each other. You said you only have redness if "ONLY THE RELEVANT OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR of each component of the system is preserved". Then only Glutamate behavior is the relevant observable behavior. And when one is aware that it has changed to greenness, it is the different glycene behavior that is the only diferent relevant observable behavior. Isn't it? Or can you substitute half of the strawberry redness "relevant observable behavior" with greenness "relevant observable behavior" and the system will still say all of the strawberry is red? On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 6:23 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Dec 2019 at 11:20, Brent Allsop wrote: > >> Hi Stathis: >> >> >> >> 1. If glutamate is swapped for glycine and glutamate receptors for >> glycine receptors in half the neurons in your brain, all the neurons in >> your brain will continue firing in the same sequence, and all the muscles >> in your body will continue contracting in the same sequence. >> >> >> >> This is where you are problematically removing the binding system that is >> directly aware of what glutamate is functionally like and how glycine >> functionality is physically different. You must have the ability to >> computationally bind thousands of pixels made up of half glutamate >> strawberry and half glycine leaves, and these are all computationally bound >> together so you can be aware of all of them at the same time. When you >> remove this ability to distinguish between two different physical >> representations in this way, the fading/dancing problems come up. >> > > Of course, if the scientist misses something it won't function in the same > way. Maybe glycine receptors are slower to respond to glycine that > glutamate receptors respond to glutamate, which would slow down the rate of > neuronal firing, which in turn might change both the way colours are > perceived and the way this is reported by the subject. But that is not what > this thought experiment is about. It assumes that EVERY RELEVANT OBSERVABLE > BEHAVIOUR of the glutamate-receptor system can be replicated by a different > neurotransmitter-receptor system. Being "directly aware of what glutamate > is functionally like" is not an OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR of the > glutamate-receptor system, like the speed of response of the receptor to > its neurotransmitter is. > > >> Where in this system you are describing is the ability to be aware of >> redness, which includes the ability to say that anything other than redness >> is not redness? No matter where I add this functionality, you always >> remove it with this anti binding system mistaken way. And of course, when >> you make these kinds of logical mistakes, problems like ?fading?/?dancing? >> qualia emerge. If you include that functionality, it becomes obvious how >> everything just works, and this ?fading?/?dancing? problem is just >> irrelevant. >> > > >> No matter how many times I say you need to provide this ability to detect >> only redness, and nothing else, you just continue to say that doesn?t >> matter. And the fact that you say that is proof that you aren't yet >> thinking of it the right way. This mistake is the cause of all the >> fading/dancing problems. The fact that you keep asserting this doesn?t >> matter just proves you are not thinking about qualia in the right way. You >> must include an ability to know when something has physically (or >> magically, or functionally) changed. >> >> >> If you provide there, there will be no "hard" problems. >> > > What I am saying is that the ability to detect redness, distinguish > redness from other colours, become excited at the experience of redness, if > it is present at all, MUST be preserved if ONLY THE RELEVANT OBSERVABLE > BEHAVIOUR of each component of the system is preserved. You don't agree, > but you haven't explained what exactly would go wrong if glutamate were > replaced with glycine. It is as if I proposed changing a component in your > car with a component identical in EVERY RELEVANT OBSERVABLE BEHAVIOUR but > you believed the car would behave differently despite this, unless the > component came from the original manufacturer. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Dec 22 05:47:51 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 21:47:51 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers Message-ID: <20191221214751.Horde.Sh4JWTfBqFUsdABUi5Dfa5R@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Brent, your insistence that qualia are physical properties manifested by molecules is misguided. They are instead the abstraction of your sensations and are thus mental properties. But mental properties are physical too, just in an information theoretic sense rather than a chemical sense. Redness is the abstract ideal of all red things, just like the circle is an abstract ideal for all round things. Redness is, in effect, the average of all red things you have ever seen. Depending on lighting and shadow you can be fooled into perceiving color in the absence any object of that color. Try it yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P8q_dCU3RI&feature=emb_logo Where does the greenness of the grass in the black and white photo come from? Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 10:48:30 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 05:48:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 5:36 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Heck, with the team & tools I have available to me (via CubeCab) right > now...the TMT's budget was about $2B to put together, right? I dare say > that I could put together a thirty meter diameter telescope, in low Earth > orbit (thus, above all the atmospheric distortions), for $200M: a tenth the > budget of the TMT.(This would be a synthetic aperture array,* > I doubt that that very very very much. > *$100M in launch costs, leaving the remaining $100M for development,* > Launch costs are not the issue! Synthetic aperture is not going to help you when it comes to equalling the light gathering power of the thirty meter telescope, you're still going to need 707 square meters of PRECISION optical surfaces, nobody has ever made a optical array anywhere close to that even on the ground much less in space. Synthetic aperture works well for radio wavelengths but it's really hard to do for optics, it's been done a few times with the 2 Keck telescopes in Hawaii but only with the help of many tons of precision equipment and even then it only worked in one dimension not 2 needed for a picture. In 2005 money was approved to improve things and add 4 much smaller 1.8 meter telescopes that wouldn't have added much light gathering power but would have allowed the much improved interferometer to resolve Neptune sized planets around nearby stars. The 4 telescopes were actually built but they never made it to the top of the mountain, they were stopped by, you guessed it, Hawaiian protestors, they feared the invisible man on the mountain wouldn't like it. The super interferometer project officially died in 2012 although it was moribund long before that. Another problem with a space based system is that all those precise optical surfaces are going to have to be flying in orbits far far more precise than anything ever flown before, so you can't put them in low earth orbit due to atmospheric drag. There is no way you're going to overcome all these problems with just 100 million. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 15:28:29 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:28:29 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Abolish peer review? Message-ID: <95BE854B-5FB9-4343-936D-32ACF0614081@gmail.com> https://academic.oup.com/bjps/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjps/axz029/5526887 TL;DR: peer review wastes time and effort. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 16:16:53 2019 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 09:16:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: The solution, of course, is to acquire ownership of or access to desirable mountaintop real estate through means other than violently overthrowing the local government and putting the entire population to work on banana plantations. Given the ridiculously toxic [and surprisingly recent] colonialist toxicity the US Federal governnent allowed to happen there in it's name, I'm surprised the locals aren't cutting of more of their noses to spite our faces. If we can learn one lesson from the last couple of hundred years, it's that people coming out of colonialist oppression don't always respond rationallly to their former oppressors, and it's stupid and unreasonable to expect them to, no matter how much better "our" values, worldview, and technology are. People just don't work that way. And anyone who refuses to deal with that is going to be very confused and very frustrated, all the time. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019, 3:51 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 5:36 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> Heck, with the team & tools I have available to me (via CubeCab) right >> now...the TMT's budget was about $2B to put together, right? I dare say >> that I could put together a thirty meter diameter telescope, in low Earth >> orbit (thus, above all the atmospheric distortions), for $200M: a tenth the >> budget of the TMT.(This would be a synthetic aperture array,* >> > > I doubt that that very very very much. > > > *$100M in launch costs, leaving the remaining $100M for development,* >> > > Launch costs are not the issue! Synthetic aperture is not going to help > you when it comes to equalling the light gathering power of the thirty > meter telescope, you're still going to need 707 square meters of PRECISION > optical surfaces, nobody has ever made a optical array anywhere close to > that even on the ground much less in space. Synthetic aperture works well > for radio wavelengths but it's really hard to do for optics, it's been done > a few times with the 2 Keck telescopes in Hawaii but only with the help of > many tons of precision equipment and even then it only worked in one > dimension not 2 needed for a picture. In 2005 money was approved to improve > things and add 4 much smaller 1.8 meter telescopes that wouldn't have added > much light gathering power but would have allowed the much improved > interferometer to resolve Neptune sized planets around nearby stars. The 4 > telescopes were actually built but they never made it to the top of the > mountain, they were stopped by, you guessed it, Hawaiian protestors, they > feared the invisible man on the mountain wouldn't like it. The super > interferometer project officially died in 2012 although it was moribund > long before that. > > Another problem with a space based system is that all those precise > optical surfaces are going to have to be flying in orbits far far more > precise than anything ever flown before, so you can't put them in low earth > orbit due to atmospheric drag. There is no way you're going to overcome all > these problems with just 100 million. > > 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 Sun Dec 22 17:54:58 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 12:54:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary Message-ID: Philosopher Frank Jackson believed existing physics could not explain everything about conscious experience and in 1982 he proposed a thought experiment that he thought would prove it. Jackson said: "*Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like 'red', 'blue', and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence 'The sky is blue'. [?] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false.*" Mary does indeed gain new knowledge when she steps out of the room and sees the color red for the first time, her brain already had the right synaptic connections to correctly answer all questions about the physics of color, when she actually sees red for the first time that means the neurons in the visual cortex of her brain have been rearranged in a way they never have been before, that is to say memories of having seen red are formed for the first time; so Mary now has memories she didn't previously have and thus can do something she couldn't do before, recognize red objects by sight. New knowledge gives us the ability to do things we couldn't do before. So all this thought experiment shows is that there are 2 types of synaptic connections, one type that happens by reading books about the physics and physiology of color and another type caused by stimulating the visual cortex of the brain. Mary didn't even need to leave the room to do all this, after all she is suposed to know all there is to know about color so she could have drilled a hole in her skull inserted a probe and directly stimulated the neurons in her visual cortex. By 2003 even Jackson could see the logic in this argument and admitted he was wrong, he now thinks existing physics can explain qualia after all. He said: "*Most contemporary philosophers given a choice between going with science and going with intuitions, go with science. Although I once dissented from the majority, I have capitulated and now see the interesting issue as being where the arguments from the intuitions against physicalism?the arguments that seem so compelling?go wrong**"* John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 18:17:32 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:17:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> The solution, of course, is to acquire ownership of or access to > desirable mountaintop real estate through means other than violently > overthrowing the local government and putting the entire population to work > on banana plantations.* [...] *If we can learn one lesson from the last > couple of hundred years, it's* [...] > I'll tell you exactly what can be learned, if you go back a couple of hundred years you may find reasons why the current behavior of certain people is stupid barbaric and parochial, however that doesn't make such behavior one bit less stupid barbaric and parochial. But some things haven't been learned, neither I or you or even the protestors understands how learning less about the universe will make up for injustices that were committed centuries ago. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 18:25:03 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:25:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Abolish peer review? In-Reply-To: <95BE854B-5FB9-4343-936D-32ACF0614081@gmail.com> References: <95BE854B-5FB9-4343-936D-32ACF0614081@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bad idea!! I think we have enough junk science as it is. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 19:20:12 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:20:12 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4001669D-6309-422D-ABE7-2282744B37A1@gmail.com> First of all, the colonization efforts in Hawaii are much more recent. Recall, the US only annexed in 1898, so about 120 years ago. A few years before that, in 1893, Westerners overthrew the government there and setup their own regime. (The Western rulers then called for annexation.) Before that they had forced a constitution on the Hawaiian kingdom. (I?m not trying to say that the Hawaiian monarchy was sacrosanct or the best possible system at the time, though the Westerners who forced the constitution on the Hawaiians certainly don?t seem like they were doing more than entrenching and extending their own power.) So, this colonialism is of rather recent vintage. After annexation, the Westerners remained in power and pretty much ran the territory (Hawaii didn?t become a US state until 1959) for their benefit. So that?s continuing colonialism until statehood. That brings us well with the lifetime of many folks now. So this isn?t really the ancient or at least distant history you make it out to be. Also, you might consider continuing structural discrimination in Hawaii, which might be partly dismantled now, but isn?t completely gone. And the issue here seems to be more that Hawaiians are still being treated as if they were second class people. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst > On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:20 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:20 AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > The solution, of course, is to acquire ownership of or access to desirable mountaintop real estate through means other than violently overthrowing the local government and putting the entire population to work on banana plantations. [...] If we can learn one lesson from the last couple of hundred years, it's [...] > > I'll tell you exactly what can be learned, if you go back a couple of hundred years you may find reasons why the current behavior of certain people is stupid barbaric and parochial, however that doesn't make such behavior one bit less stupid barbaric and parochial. But some things haven't been learned, neither I or you or even the protestors understands how learning less about the universe will make up for injustices that were committed centuries ago. > > John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 19:23:30 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 11:23:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Abolish peer review? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74EBF1A6-B266-43A7-9880-31F746C6A891@gmail.com> On Dec 22, 2019, at 10:27 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > Bad idea!! I think we have enough junk science as it is. > > John K Clark You might want to lower yourself to reading their arguments rather than simply knee-jerk respond to this one. The link is: https://academic.oup.com/bjps/advance-article/doi/10.1093/bjps/axz029/5526887 Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 19:50:18 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:50:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Existing physics can't explain qualia (as well as many other, actually more tractable problems) but yes Mary the Color Scientist is a bad thought experiment. As are many thought experiments, because they don't exist in reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 19:51:57 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 14:51:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: pwned -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 20:00:54 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:00:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <4001669D-6309-422D-ABE7-2282744B37A1@gmail.com> References: <4001669D-6309-422D-ABE7-2282744B37A1@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:23 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> First of all, the colonization efforts in Hawaii are much more recent. > Recall, the US only annexed in 1898, so about 120 years ago. A few years > before that, in 1893, Westerners* [...] > As I said, explaining that some native Hawaiians are behaving in a stupid barbaric and parochial way today now due to something that happened in 1893 may be true but it doesn't make the current behavior one bit less stupid barbaric and parochial. And I still don't understand why westerners learning less about the universe will make up for an injustice committed by them in 1893. I hope you don't think only westerners would have any interest in such things. > *Hawaiians are still being treated as if they were second class people.* > What does that have to do with the price of eggs?! What does one thing have to do with the other, how will learning less about the universe make them first class people? There is something else I don't understand, I don't understand why some people seem to have a visceral need to defend the actions of a anti-science ignorance embracing mob, or pretty much any sort of mob provided the mob is not part of their own culture. I don't think westerners are unique in having shameful events in their past and recent events has certainly proven that other cultures can behave in stupid barbaric and parochial ways. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 21:54:15 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 13:54:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In this case, one can note that Mary can not possibly acquire "all the physical information" even in a lifetime of work. That doesn't mean the information isn't there, just that the method proposed would obviously fail to provide enough resources to acquire it. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:52 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Existing physics can't explain qualia (as well as many other, actually > more tractable problems) but yes Mary the Color Scientist is a bad thought > experiment. As are many thought experiments, because they don't exist in > reality. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 22:33:33 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:33:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, physics can explain everything about qualia, the problem is, all these abstract labels for and descriptions of physics that come to our senses tell us nothing about the physical quality they are describing. The only thing qualitative is subjective experience. Everything we get from objective observation is abstract. The physics that interacts with our senses isn?t anything like whatever is the target of perception. So, in order to know the qualitative color of something, you need to experience it directly. For example, it is a theoretical possibility that the causal properties of redness are the causal properties of glutamate as it reacts in a synapse. In other words, both the abstract words redness and glutamate are labels for the same thing. We don?t perceive redness, redness is the final result of perception, the quality of the physical knowledge we are directly aware of. The word red isn?t physically red. In order to know what red means, you need to point to something physical (or in Stathis? case, maybe point to something functional or magic) and say THAT is red. Because physicists and neuroscientists never do this, they are qualia blind. They can?t tell us what THAT is, as a definition of red. Frank Jackson started to far one way (physics can?t explain qualia) and was wrong. Then he swung the other way, and is still wrong (has no idea how to bridge the explanatory gap) And as usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Once experimentalists stop being qualia blind (use two words color and colorness as in glutamate?s color is white, since it reflects white light but it?s colorness is redness.) they will soon discover what the definition of red is. They will be able to finally tell us which of all their descriptions of physics is the description of redness. Discovering this will obviously falsify all but *THE ONE* true theory of qualia, from amongst all the yet to be falsified diverse sets of theories predicting the extreme diversity of possible physical natures of qualia. You can see all the competing theories in the sub camps of Representational Qualia Theory . Hopefully it is obvious to everyone that I am in the Molecular Materialism camp . Or here is the entire parent chain of my camps: *Agreement / Approachable Via Science / Representational Qualia / Mind-Brain Identity / Monism / Qualia are Material Qualities / Molecular Materialism * Stathis, you are still a functionalist, right? But which type of functionalist are you? A Monist functionalist or a property dualist functionalist ? Or some other camp? Or have I falsified functionalism for you yet? How would each of you rank the best of these theories? John, William, anyone else? Does anyone know of a theory that hasn?t yet been canonized? And even more, would anyone care to make any kind of bet as to which camp will be the first to achieve a 90% or better consensus, using the peer ranked mind expert canonizer algorithm ? Also, how long do people think this will take to get to a 90% scientific consensus? I predict it will happen within 5 years of achieving a total participation of 1000 verified people participating in the Theories of Consciousness topic. There are currently less than 100 total participants. So it is all up to you to help with the amplification of the wisdom of the crowd process and basically sign the petition that you believe scientists need to stop being qualia blind so they will get the message sooner. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In this case, one can note that Mary can not possibly acquire "all the > physical information" even in a lifetime of work. > > That doesn't mean the information isn't there, just that the method > proposed would obviously fail to provide enough resources to acquire it. > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:52 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Existing physics can't explain qualia (as well as many other, actually >> more tractable problems) but yes Mary the Color Scientist is a bad thought >> experiment. As are many thought experiments, because they don't exist in >> reality. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Dec 22 22:56:05 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 16:56:05 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We don?t perceive redness, redness is the final result of perception, the quality of the physical knowledge we are directly aware of. This seems completely contradictory, as you have 'perceive' and 'perception' opposed, or something. bill w On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 4:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Yes, physics can explain everything about qualia, the problem is, all > these abstract labels for and descriptions of physics that come to our > senses tell us nothing about the physical quality they are describing. The > only thing qualitative is subjective experience. Everything we get from > objective observation is abstract. The physics that interacts with our > senses isn?t anything like whatever is the target of perception. So, in > order to know the qualitative color of something, you need to experience it > directly. For example, it is a theoretical possibility that the causal > properties of redness are the causal properties of glutamate as it reacts > in a synapse. In other words, both the abstract words redness and > glutamate are labels for the same thing. We don?t perceive redness, > redness is the final result of perception, the quality of the physical > knowledge we are directly aware of. > > > > The word red isn?t physically red. In order to know what red means, you > need to point to something physical (or in Stathis? case, maybe point to > something functional or magic) and say THAT is red. Because physicists and > neuroscientists never do this, they are qualia blind. They can?t tell us > what THAT is, as a definition of red. > > > > Frank Jackson started to far one way (physics can?t explain qualia) and > was wrong. Then he swung the other way, and is still wrong (has no idea > how to bridge the explanatory gap) And as usual, the answer is somewhere in > the middle. > > > > Once experimentalists stop being qualia blind (use two words color and > colorness as in glutamate?s color is white, since it reflects white light > but it?s colorness is redness.) they will soon discover what the definition > of red is. They will be able to finally tell us which of all their > descriptions of physics is the description of redness. > > > > Discovering this will obviously falsify all but *THE ONE* true theory of > qualia, from amongst all the yet to be falsified diverse sets of theories > predicting the extreme diversity of possible physical natures of qualia. > You can see all the competing theories in the sub camps of Representational > Qualia Theory . > > > > > Hopefully it is obvious to everyone that I am in the Molecular > Materialism camp > . > > Or here is the entire parent chain of my camps: > > *Agreement > / Approachable > Via Science > / Representational > Qualia > / Mind-Brain > Identity / Monism > / Qualia are Material Qualities > / Molecular > Materialism * > > > > Stathis, you are still a functionalist, right? But which type of > functionalist are you? A Monist functionalist > or a property > dualist functionalist > ? Or some > other camp? Or have I falsified functionalism for you yet? > > > > How would each of you rank the best of these theories? John, William, > anyone else? Does anyone know of a theory that hasn?t yet been canonized? > > > > And even more, would anyone care to make any kind of bet as to which camp > will be the first to achieve a 90% or better consensus, using the peer > ranked mind expert canonizer algorithm > ? > > > > Also, how long do people think this will take to get to a 90% scientific > consensus? I predict it will happen within 5 years of achieving a > total participation of 1000 verified people participating in the Theories > of Consciousness > topic. > There are currently less than 100 total participants. So it is all up to > you to help with the amplification of the wisdom of the crowd process and > basically sign the petition that you believe scientists need to stop being > qualia blind so they will get the message sooner. > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> In this case, one can note that Mary can not possibly acquire "all the >> physical information" even in a lifetime of work. >> >> That doesn't mean the information isn't there, just that the method >> proposed would obviously fail to provide enough resources to acquire it. >> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:52 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Existing physics can't explain qualia (as well as many other, actually >>> more tractable problems) but yes Mary the Color Scientist is a bad thought >>> experiment. As are many thought experiments, because they don't exist in >>> reality. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Sun Dec 22 23:13:50 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:13:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] some cool light effects Message-ID: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/history-of-words-on-natural-lights/aurora Moondog. Wasn't that the name of some entertainer? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 23:15:25 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 15:15:25 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:51 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Synthetic aperture is not going to help you when it comes to equalling > the light gathering power of the thirty meter telescope, > I never said it would be the same. I said I could get a 30 meter diameter synthetic aperture telescope up for far less. Now, if you want almost the same telescope - how much do you think it would take to get enough robotic (possibly teleoperated) mining, refining, and manufacturing capability on the Moon to be able to start constructing lunar observatories? Again, though, the money wouldn't be spent entirely or almost entirely on Hawaii, which kills the idea of repurposing this specific budget. > Another problem with a space based system is that all those precise > optical surfaces are going to have to be flying in orbits far far more > precise than anything ever flown before, so you can't put them in low earth > orbit due to atmospheric drag. > What would happen if you did put it in low Earth orbit? Would you get a better signal than from a hypothetical observatory that doesn't exist in the first place? BTW, this is "orbit" singular, the mass of satellites being docked to one another to form one large structure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 23:50:47 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 17:50:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: What do I know? Hah. But wouldn't it be far more simple to put a telescope in orbit around the Moon? bill w On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 5:22 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:51 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Synthetic aperture is not going to help you when it comes to equalling >> the light gathering power of the thirty meter telescope, >> > > I never said it would be the same. I said I could get a 30 meter diameter > synthetic aperture telescope up for far less. > > Now, if you want almost the same telescope - how much do you think it > would take to get enough robotic (possibly teleoperated) mining, refining, > and manufacturing capability on the Moon to be able to start constructing > lunar observatories? Again, though, the money wouldn't be spent entirely > or almost entirely on Hawaii, which kills the idea of repurposing this > specific budget. > > >> Another problem with a space based system is that all those precise >> optical surfaces are going to have to be flying in orbits far far more >> precise than anything ever flown before, so you can't put them in low earth >> orbit due to atmospheric drag. >> > > What would happen if you did put it in low Earth orbit? Would you get a > better signal than from a hypothetical observatory that doesn't exist in > the first place? > > BTW, this is "orbit" singular, the mass of satellites being docked to one > another to form one large structure. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 01:11:39 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 18:11:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Right, everyone has this misconception that everything in the brain is like it is in a computer. Just abstract interpretations of interpretations of perceptions of perceptions, forever. This is a big part of qualia blindness. There is no qualia or physical quality of any kind in such a system, nor is there there any qualitative information in any of our knowledge of the universe. The only way to get qualitative knowledge of physics is to be directly aware of it, so you can know the quality of what the abstract physics information is describing. In a computer the closest you get to ?computational binding? in the CPU is where you load two registers to mathematically ?bind? them. If you want to know if a strawberry is ripe enough to pick, you need to analyze each pixel one at a time in a register, comparing each one to a reference value to see if it is ripe enough via a difference operation. These registers are computationally bound with ?discreet logic? gates. The above image is the very complex discrete logic required to do a subtraction operation on only 4 bits of two registers. Each bit you add increases the complexity exponentially. All you get from that difference operation is just another integer value representing how close it is to being ripe enough. You need to do further computation from there, including the differences of all the other pixels of the strawberry, one at a time, then do yet more complex machinery on all those difference numbers and so on. Each pixel in a CPU register is represented by an RGB number like (255,0,0). Each pixel in our CPU is represented by physics that has an actuall redness value which can be computationally bound to all the other pixels and knowledge included in what is a composite qualitative experience. Each of the pixels of redness knowledge for us is computationally bound into our massive biological CPU that is just aware of every single pixel, and you are just aware of each one, all at the same time. There is lots of necessary computation going on to achieve that kind of aware of it all at the same time composite qualitative experience. With computers, you have ?Field programmable gate arrays? to do custom programming. Consciousness is what it is like for a massive sleep programmed gate array CPU to operate. Redness is only part of what qualia are. Most of it is the way each pixel of redness knowledge can be computationally bound to all the other pixels, your memories and everything else, all at once. Integration Information Theory predicts how you can quantitatively measure the conscious power of any brain CPU by how ?integrated? it is. They have rigorous methods to measure and calculate the amount of integration able to do computational and come up with a quantitative value they refer to as phi.*?* That gives you a quantity of all your computational binding. To get the quality of consciousness, you need Representational Qualia Theory , and qualitative definitions to words like "redness". On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 3:57 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > We don?t perceive redness, redness is the final result of perception, > the quality of the physical knowledge we are directly aware of. > > This seems completely contradictory, as you have 'perceive' and > 'perception' opposed, or something. bill w > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 4:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Yes, physics can explain everything about qualia, the problem is, all >> these abstract labels for and descriptions of physics that come to our >> senses tell us nothing about the physical quality they are describing. The >> only thing qualitative is subjective experience. Everything we get from >> objective observation is abstract. The physics that interacts with our >> senses isn?t anything like whatever is the target of perception. So, in >> order to know the qualitative color of something, you need to experience it >> directly. For example, it is a theoretical possibility that the causal >> properties of redness are the causal properties of glutamate as it reacts >> in a synapse. In other words, both the abstract words redness and >> glutamate are labels for the same thing. We don?t perceive redness, >> redness is the final result of perception, the quality of the physical >> knowledge we are directly aware of. >> >> >> >> The word red isn?t physically red. In order to know what red means, you >> need to point to something physical (or in Stathis? case, maybe point to >> something functional or magic) and say THAT is red. Because physicists and >> neuroscientists never do this, they are qualia blind. They can?t tell us >> what THAT is, as a definition of red. >> >> >> >> Frank Jackson started to far one way (physics can?t explain qualia) and >> was wrong. Then he swung the other way, and is still wrong (has no idea >> how to bridge the explanatory gap) And as usual, the answer is somewhere in >> the middle. >> >> >> >> Once experimentalists stop being qualia blind (use two words color and >> colorness as in glutamate?s color is white, since it reflects white light >> but it?s colorness is redness.) they will soon discover what the definition >> of red is. They will be able to finally tell us which of all their >> descriptions of physics is the description of redness. >> >> >> >> Discovering this will obviously falsify all but *THE ONE* true theory of >> qualia, from amongst all the yet to be falsified diverse sets of theories >> predicting the extreme diversity of possible physical natures of qualia. >> You can see all the competing theories in the sub camps of Representational >> Qualia Theory . >> >> >> >> >> Hopefully it is obvious to everyone that I am in the Molecular >> Materialism camp >> . >> >> Or here is the entire parent chain of my camps: >> >> *Agreement >> / Approachable >> Via Science >> / Representational >> Qualia >> / Mind-Brain >> Identity / Monism >> / Qualia are Material Qualities >> / Molecular >> Materialism * >> >> >> >> Stathis, you are still a functionalist, right? But which type of >> functionalist are you? A Monist functionalist >> or a property >> dualist functionalist >> ? Or some >> other camp? Or have I falsified functionalism for you yet? >> >> >> >> How would each of you rank the best of these theories? John, William, >> anyone else? Does anyone know of a theory that hasn?t yet been canonized? >> >> >> >> And even more, would anyone care to make any kind of bet as to which camp >> will be the first to achieve a 90% or better consensus, using the peer >> ranked mind expert canonizer algorithm >> ? >> >> >> >> Also, how long do people think this will take to get to a 90% scientific >> consensus? I predict it will happen within 5 years of achieving a >> total participation of 1000 verified people participating in the Theories >> of Consciousness >> topic. >> There are currently less than 100 total participants. So it is all up to >> you to help with the amplification of the wisdom of the crowd process and >> basically sign the petition that you believe scientists need to stop being >> qualia blind so they will get the message sooner. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:55 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> In this case, one can note that Mary can not possibly acquire "all the >>> physical information" even in a lifetime of work. >>> >>> That doesn't mean the information isn't there, just that the method >>> proposed would obviously fail to provide enough resources to acquire it. >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:52 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Existing physics can't explain qualia (as well as many other, actually >>>> more tractable problems) but yes Mary the Color Scientist is a bad thought >>>> experiment. As are many thought experiments, because they don't exist in >>>> reality. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 01:16:27 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 18:16:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] some cool light effects In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yea, lots of cool colors. I'm so looking forward to finding out which physics it is that really has all those qualitative colors. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 4:15 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/history-of-words-on-natural-lights/aurora > > Moondog. Wasn't that the name of some entertainer? > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 02:27:27 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 18:27:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> On Dec 22, 2019, at 12:07 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? >> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 2:23 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > First of all, the colonization efforts in Hawaii are much more recent. Recall, the US only annexed in 1898, so about 120 years ago. A few years before that, in 1893, Westerners [...] > > As I said, explaining that some native Hawaiians are behaving in a stupid barbaric and parochial way today now due to something that happened in 1893 may be true but it doesn't make the current behavior one bit less stupid barbaric and parochial. As I wrote, 1893 is just one of the early dates. And my point was that this was not literally centuries ago. But it marks an early watershed for colonization. (Actually, the process started a few years ? not a few _centuries_ ? earlier.) You using ?centuries? in your earlier comment shows you?ve done no research on this and seem to want to put it in the same bin as Roman reparations for invading Gaul. (Joking and exaggerating on this last point, but I hope you grasp what I?m getting at.) > And I still don't understand why westerners learning less about the universe will make up for an injustice committed by them in 1893. I hope you don't think only westerners would have any interest in such things. I?m not sure it would, but my post was about trying to understand the history and how people might feel when they?re on colonized end of the stick. They might not be as sanguine about how the colonizers plan to disperse with what they (the colonized) believe is theirs. >> > Hawaiians are still being treated as if they were second class people. > > What does that have to do with the price of eggs?! What does one thing have to do with the other, how will learning less about the universe make them first class people? Try to understand this in a different way. Imagine there was a group of people who invaded your region and took your stuff. Let?s say these invaders held philosophical research in very high esteem. They believed that stuff taken from you would be better used to, say, find a new philosophy institute in your area. They might argue when you protest that pushing back the frontiers of ignorance via philosophy was beneficial to all, including to a philistine like you. Given your uniformed opinions about philosophy (what? You read a book by that crackpot Mortimer Adler;), these invaders might go further and class you as a barbarians, part of an ignorant mob who obviously didn?t know what was good for itself, so should be treated with contempt. Would that argument sway you? I?m guessing it wouldn?t. > There is something else I don't understand, I don't understand why some people seem to have a visceral need to defend the actions of a anti-science ignorance embracing mob, or pretty much any sort of mob provided the mob is not part of their own culture. I don't think westerners are unique in having shameful events in their past and recent events has certainly proven that other cultures can behave in stupid barbaric and parochial ways. The main issues here for me are the colonization and the justice ones. That seems to be what you?re missing. You?re setting aside, again, as if science is a card that trumps all other concerns. In fact, if you?re going to make it a trump card like that, shouldn?t you be railing against just about anything people do that doesn?t extend scientific research. For instance, why should people have pastimes ? unless these can be shown to be marginally better than shifting those efforts and resources over to scientific research? Maybe you wouldn?t go that far, but why wouldn?t you? What would stop from going to that extreme? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 06:50:16 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 14:50:16 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Gigantic Poster Features Every Product the Fictional ACME Corporation Ever Produced Message-ID: This warms my heart, with memories from my childhood... I find something very transhumanist about the amazing technologies that ACME offered their customers... ; ) https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/567190/gigantic-poster-features-every-product-fictional-acme-corporation-ever-produced?fbclid=IwAR0yvwpxv2wwgF9E0sl04pz34EDX2KKz07Yv3-kngvcR94LQe2de-wUU4As -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 06:53:09 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 14:53:09 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Looking back at Heinlein's Future History - coming true before our eyes. Message-ID: "I began to sense faintly that secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy ... censorship. When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, 'This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." (If This Goes On-- Chapter 6) How far will things go? https://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2017/03/looking-back-at-heinleins-future.html?fbclid=IwAR2_jdYPS_xWsRj8hRxobpGIEZbGmnLgyoyYl0-a8bzvKl7dMpdkeEiXn0o -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 06:55:20 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 14:55:20 +0800 Subject: [ExI] A Stellar Mystery: How Could 100 Stars Just Vanish? Message-ID: What is going on out there? Are we seeing the results of a "star wars" from ages past? Or did someone get really ambitious building a mega mega mega sized Dyson Sphere? Lol https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/stellar-mystery-how-could-100-stars-just-vanish-180973821/?fbclid=IwAR2dKYbYxZxmNuZ_nCzVLbkO0ScGVmnU8YTN0AVCHzqRgmnmv8_NA1Ftvfg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 08:00:26 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A Stellar Mystery: How Could 100 Stars Just Vanish? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In addition to natural causes, one must also consider the possibility that some of the original data may be inaccurate. The US military is known for putting out occasional false information for (classified) reasons they prefer to never admit to. On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:08 PM John Grigg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What is going on out there? Are we seeing the results of a "star wars" > from ages past? Or did someone get really ambitious building a mega mega > mega sized Dyson Sphere? Lol > > > > https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/stellar-mystery-how-could-100-stars-just-vanish-180973821/?fbclid=IwAR2dKYbYxZxmNuZ_nCzVLbkO0ScGVmnU8YTN0AVCHzqRgmnmv8_NA1Ftvfg > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 11:09:55 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 06:09:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 6:23 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> Synthetic aperture is not going to help you when it comes to equalling >> the light gathering power of the thirty meter telescope, >> > > *> I never said it would be the same. I said I could get a 30 meter > diameter synthetic aperture telescope up for far less.* > You said it could be developed for just 100 million dollars and I said I very much doubted that price estimate. The James Webb Telescope was originally suposed to be launched in 2007 and cost 825 million dollars, but as of this date it has cost 10 billion and it's still sitting on the ground doing nothing. Space telescopes are very expensive and take longer to make than you'd expect even if you take Hofstadter's Law into account. Hofstadter's Law says It always takes longer than you'd expect even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. > *> Now, if you want almost the same telescope - how much do you think it > would take to get enough robotic (possibly teleoperated) mining, refining, > and manufacturing capability on the Moon to be able to start constructing > lunar observatories? * > I don't think anybody on the planet could give a price estimate on that that was worth a damn. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 12:38:29 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:38:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:30 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> As I said, explaining that some native Hawaiians are behaving in a >> stupid barbaric and parochial way today now due to something that happened >> in 1893 may be true but it doesn't make the current behavior one bit less >> stupid barbaric and parochial. > > > *> As I wrote, 1893 is just one of the early dates. And my point was that > this was not literally centuries ago.* > I don't care if it happened yesterday because explaining why somebody is stupid barbaric and parochial does not make them one bit less stupid barbaric and parochial. > >> And I still don't understand why westerners learning less about the >> universe will make up for an injustice committed by them in 1893. I hope >> you don't think only westerners would have any interest in such things. > > > *> I?m not sure it would,* > Well I'm very sure it would NOT! The Hawaiian protestor's motto seems to be "we will keep humanity from acquiring new knowledge until they respect us", and that motto will work just about as well as another motto, "The beatings will continue until morale improves". > * > but my post was about trying to understand the history* > Why what's the point? You could know all there is to know about their history and understand exactly why they behave as they do, but at the end of the day they're still stupid barbaric and parochial, the only difference is that now after all that study you know why they're stupid barbaric and parochial. > *> these invaders might go further and class you as a barbarians, part of > an ignorant mob* > I make absolutely NO apology for calling a group of people who destroyed a magnificent monument to the better nature of the Human race like the Thirty Meter Telescope and shut down the world's premiere optical observatory for nearly 2 months for the first time in over half a century because astronomers feared for their lives a ignorant barbaric parochial mob. > *Would that argument sway you? I?m guessing it wouldn?t.* > I don't think any argument of mine would sway that ignorant barbaric mob, at least not an argument based on logic. A cock and bull story about another invisible man who was more powerful and wanted more telescopes might work, but I'm not very good at concocting such tales. > *> The main issues here for me are the colonization and the justice ones. > That seems to be what you?re missing.* > What I'm missing is understanding how preventing the Human race from better understanding its place in the universe can ameliorate a past injustice, nor can I understand why so many people who like to think of themselves as forward thinking and enlightened have a knee jerk reaction to defend the evil forces of the anti-enlightenment, provided of course that it's not part of their own culture. By the way, I don't use the word "evil" a lot but I think it's appropriate in this case. > *> You?re setting aside, again, as if science is a card that trumps all > other concerns.* > It sure as hell trumps the concern that an invisible man on a mountain will be annoyed by a telescope! John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 13:38:19 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:38:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 5:36 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> The word red isn?t physically red.* True, but a ripe tomato is objectively red in terms of the wavelength of light it produces and subjectively red in terms of the qualia it engenders. So when you point to a tomato and say "red" a child learns what a new word means. That's how people learn language, not through dictionaries and definitions but through examples. *> In order to know what red means, you need to point to something physical > (or in Stathis? case, maybe point to something functional or magic) and say > THAT is red. Because physicists and neuroscientists never do this, they > are qualia blind. * Except for their own qualia EVERYBODY is qualia blind even poets, the handicap is not limited to physicists and neuroscientists. And that will never change. > *> Once experimentalists stop being qualia blind* [...] > Good luck waiting for that to happen! > * > They will be able to finally tell us which of all their descriptions > of physics is the description of redness. * > I don't understand what even in principle would satisfy you. If scientists found a chemical you'd correctly say that chemical is not the red qualia, and if they found a complex chemical process you'd correctly say that complex chemical process is not the red qualia, and if they found a particular pattern of neuron firings you'd correctly say that particular pattern of neuron firings is not the red qualia. Even if they somehow proved with absolute certainty that X causes the red qualia and only X can cause the red qualia you'd say I'm still not satisfied, X may bring about a qualia but X itself is not a qualia, X is something objective and physical but I want to understand the connection between the objective and the subjective. So just give me the general outline of the sort of thing that would make you say "yep you've got it, that's all I need to know". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 14:08:15 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 09:08:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <20191221141954.Horde.-T0jmtQB-MWbkKILL2-vvKD@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 6:53 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What do I know? Hah. But wouldn't it be far more simple to put a > telescope in orbit around the Moon? > The ideal place for a space telescope is L2, the second Lagrange point 1.5 million kilometers from the earth, that's because both the Earth and the Sun are very hot compared to empty space and at that point the earth and the sun are always in the same position so the satellite can have a large stationary heat shield to keep the telescope in shadow and thus keep it very cold without any mechanical refrigeration needed. You need the telescope to be cold if it's to detect infrared light from the most distant parts of the universe, and from there even ultraviolet light has been red-shifted into the infrared. L2 is where the James Webb telescope is going to go if the damn thing ever gets off the ground. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 23 15:44:06 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 07:44:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <023e01d5b9a7$cfc181a0$6f4484e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Except for their own qualia EVERYBODY is qualia blind even poets, the handicap is not limited to physicists and neuroscientists. And that will never change. ? John K Clark Indeed sir? Ye of little faith. John I can see your qualia, me lad. Only recently in history can we do it. We can all go right now into excel or something equivalent to it, go into your color wheel where it says ?more colors? set the red to 255, the green and blue to zero, and there my friends, is the absolute objective definition of RED! What you see there is red. No subjectivity left, no wiggle room, the computer people have handed us a great gift. Do let me go on that for a minute before I dispute John?s notion in verse. Yesterday was the winter solstice, which is always a time of great rejoicing because the darkest days are behind us for the year. Now each day, more sunshine returns, lifting our spirits, minute by minute of increased access to that glorious fusion reactor in the sky, oh what a marvelous time. So we are at the time of the year in which the sun begins its annual return, we are at a point in history where mankind is undergoing a great awakening, LIGO results are blowing our minds every few weeks, our childrens is learnin, we are here, we are alive, and oh life is good. John claims even the poets are qualia blind. No way Jose! Set your color wheel to 255, 0, 0 and there it is, in all its refulgent glory! Here?s a poet?s view for ya: There once was a young man named Clark In science he made his life?s mark He would often see red And so it was said It?s clear he is not in the dark. We have been with extropians so long We knew this routine like a song, We could see his red qualia So the notion was folly, a Lot of us knew it was wrong. But we?d rather talk about that Than some dreary political spat So they all played along And sang the old song Though some were sharp and some flat. There ya go John, proof. Poets can see your qualia. Set that color wheel as specified, 255, 0,0 then what you see and what I see are the SAME! By definition! Perhaps one must be a poet like your old pal spike to eff this ineffable concept. But I see it. I have the eye of a POET! I fear the ExI discussion at this merry Newtonmas season has been far not silly enough for our standards, so I invite some annual silliness or failing that, just some cheerful winter solstice greetings are in order such as the one I send to all of you, from the poet laureate of? my house. May the new year bring you every happiness, may the joy of fresh LIGO results bless your home and family, may the spirit of dynamic optimism move your soul, may science and technology infuse your being and lift your spirits and we grow together in new understanding. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 16:24:51 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 16:24:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Watch a self-driving car race round a stunt course Message-ID: Quote: Engineers at Stanford?s Dynamic Design Lab have taught a self-driving DeLorean ? the iconic early 80s sports car of ?Back to the Future? fame ? how to drift around a complex, kilometer-long track that even human drivers would struggle with. The onboard computer system learns, from dozens of runs, how the dynamics of the vehicle respond to the road conditions and twists and turns. The same kind of technology could one day make the difference between a pedestrian getting hit or not getting hit by a driverless car, according to the team. ?We?re trying to develop automated vehicles that can handle emergency maneuvers or slippery surfaces like ice or snow,? lead engineer Chris Gerdes said in a statement. ?We?d like to develop automated vehicles that can use all of the friction between the tire and the road to get the car out of harm?s way. We want the car to be able to avoid any accident that?s avoidable within the laws of physics.? 3 minutes. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 23 16:55:31 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 08:55:31 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Watch a self-driving car race round a stunt course In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <024901d5b9b1$c9f7fc40$5de7f4c0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Watch a self-driving car race round a stunt course Quote: Engineers at Stanford?s Dynamic Design Lab have taught a self-driving DeLorean ? the iconic early 80s sports car of ?Back to the Future? fame ? how to drift around a complex, kilometer-long track that even human drivers would struggle with.... https://futurism.com/self-driving-delorean-stunt-course https://youtu.be/3x3SqeSdrAE BillK _______________________________________________ BillK! Think about the possibilities here. Clearly it isn't economically viable to burn up tires like this, but I have an idea (ja I know, shocking, spike has a crazy idea (but read on please (because this is a good one.))) We are accustomed to Macadam pavement, we know what it is: long chain hydrocarbon goo left over in the bottom of the petroleum refinery after we take off the octane and Diesel fuel, the motor oil and all that, kinda sticky black tarry stuff, so we mix it with gravel and make roads out of it, cool, but always we mix it such that the road provides maximum traction with rubber tires, ja? OK, what if... we could make a surface that was intentionally slick, something you would never use to make a road? Instead of gravel we could mix the tar with something else methinks, then perhaps top coat it with... verathane? Something durable but slick, make it impervious, then spray a thin layer of water over it. OK cool, now we have a good flat paved surface so slick you can play these car games without burning up tires. We could do it with an ordinary snoozemobile, no expensive hotrod DeLorean necessary, no risk of it hitting 88 mph and disappearing, none of that kind of problem. We get those clever Stanford lads to rig it up with their AI driving software and all that, get a big speaker underneath to make squeally noises simulating tires burning, smoke generator like the stunt pilots have, and now... you have a low cost non-tire-burning stunt car you can charge the proles fifty bucks for a 10 minute insane ride, camera inside to record them going yaaaaaa, sell that to them, or it might not even take that long before they cry for mercy or barf and oh we make a fortune, tons of money, cubic buttloads I tells ya! If we don't, ya know some other crazy yahoo is going to think of the same idea and do it. We need to act fast. spike From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 18:08:33 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:08:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: <023e01d5b9a7$cfc181a0$6f4484e0$@rainier66.com> References: <023e01d5b9a7$cfc181a0$6f4484e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Very nice poem Spike thanks for jumping in. I so enjoyed the commentary on being interested in this, over politics, and all that. Our local newspaper has only two sections, today. Politics on in the small front section, and a second larger sports section. Nothing else. Also, last night at a neighborhood Christmas party, I asked why the US needs more than 10 aircraft carriers (they have 11). But that just opened a flood gate of fear mongering, worshipping how things used to be (evidently everything today is worn out) and a bunch of fear about China (as if they are going to invade the US and militarily force us to be communist. (LOL, they were saying all this fear mongering about china, while at the same time talking about how we can?t even force puny Afghanistan to adopt our form of government.) It is often very draining to be in Utah. You guys make it possible, even enjoyable to survive. Now back to the good stuff. we must remember to distinguish between color and knowledge of color (Requires a different term to not be qualia blind so ?colorness?). I wasn?t going to do this as it is still broken and not finished, but part of the a video we are creating on this topic showing how knowledge of color, or colorness, can be inverted from color is now here . But at least the play button works. This shows how ?perception? can be inverted at any point in the long perception chain, resulting in inverted qualia . This shows how all objectively perceived information, even all poetry, is abstracted away from any physical qualities. The only way to know what a word like ?redness? means, physically, is to experience it directly/subjectively, so you can build your own internal dictionary definition for the word redness. Again, glutamate has both a color property and a colorness property. Since it reflects white light, its color is ?white?. But when we are directly aware of it reacting in a synapse, we are directly aware of its colorness property which is redness. We have abstract descriptions (even poetry?) of how glutamate reacts in a synapse, but nothing, yet to tell us the colorness those poetic descriptions are describing. John made this very falsifiable (consciousness is not approachable via science ) statement: ?Except for their own qualia EVERYBODY is qualia blind even poets, the handicap is not limited to physicists and neuroscientists. And *that will never change*.? Again, once we have neural ponytails , that computationally bind like the corpus callosum, we will direct experience all of the experiences, not just half. With that we will directly experience whether or not someone else?s redness is like our greenness or not, just as surely as we know that physical redness is the same physical redness in both the left and right hemispheres of our brain. This will be as undeniable as ?I think, therefor I am.? Direct experience cannot be mistaken/inverted like ?perception? can. On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 8:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark via extropy-chat > > > > Except for their own qualia EVERYBODY is qualia blind even poets, the > handicap is not limited to physicists and neuroscientists. And that will > never change. > > ? > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > Indeed sir? Ye of little faith. John I can see your qualia, me lad. > Only recently in history can we do it. We can all go right now into excel > or something equivalent to it, go into your color wheel where it says ?more > colors? set the red to 255, the green and blue to zero, and there my > friends, is the absolute objective definition of RED! What you see there > is red. No subjectivity left, no wiggle room, the computer people have > handed us a great gift. > > > > Do let me go on that for a minute before I dispute John?s notion in > verse. > > > > Yesterday was the winter solstice, which is always a time of great > rejoicing because the darkest days are behind us for the year. Now each > day, more sunshine returns, lifting our spirits, minute by minute of > increased access to that glorious fusion reactor in the sky, oh what a > marvelous time. So we are at the time of the year in which the sun begins > its annual return, we are at a point in history where mankind is undergoing > a great awakening, LIGO results are blowing our minds every few weeks, our > childrens is learnin, we are here, we are alive, and oh life is good. > > > > John claims even the poets are qualia blind. No way Jose! Set your color > wheel to 255, 0, 0 and there it is, in all its refulgent glory! Here?s a > poet?s view for ya: > > > > There once was a young man named Clark > > In science he made his life?s mark > > He would often see red > > And so it was said > > It?s clear he is not in the dark. > > > > We have been with extropians so long > > We knew this routine like a song, > > We could see his red qualia > > So the notion was folly, a > > Lot of us knew it was wrong. > > > > But we?d rather talk about that > > Than some dreary political spat > > So they all played along > > And sang the old song > > Though some were sharp and some flat. > > > > There ya go John, proof. Poets can see your qualia. Set that color wheel > as specified, 255, 0,0 then what you see and what I see are the SAME! By > definition! Perhaps one must be a poet like your old pal spike to eff this > ineffable concept. But I see it. I have the eye of a POET! > > > > I fear the ExI discussion at this merry Newtonmas season has been far not > silly enough for our standards, so I invite some annual silliness or > failing that, just some cheerful winter solstice greetings are in order > such as the one I send to all of you, from the poet laureate of? my house. > > > > May the new year bring you every happiness, may the joy of fresh LIGO > results bless your home and family, may the spirit of dynamic optimism move > your soul, may science and technology infuse your being and lift your > spirits and we grow together in new understanding. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 18:39:55 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 11:39:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: <023e01d5b9a7$cfc181a0$6f4484e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: John, I just realized that when you said: ?That will never change?, you may have been meaning to say: ?The abstract objective will *never *be able to eff the ineffable without physical qualitative definitions of the terms being used.? If you meant that, I apologize. On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:08 AM Brent Allsop wrote: > Very nice poem Spike thanks for jumping in. I so enjoyed the commentary on > being interested in this, over politics, and all that. Our local newspaper > has only two sections, today. Politics on in the small front section, and > a second larger sports section. Nothing else. Also, last night at a > neighborhood Christmas party, I asked why the US needs more than 10 > aircraft carriers (they have 11). But that just opened a flood gate of > fear mongering, worshipping how things used to be (evidently everything > today is worn out) and a bunch of fear about China (as if they are going to > invade the US and militarily force us to be communist. (LOL, they were > saying all this fear mongering about china, while at the same time talking > about how we can?t even force puny Afghanistan to adopt our form of > government.) It is often very draining to be in Utah. You guys make it > possible, even enjoyable to survive. > > > > Now back to the good stuff. we must remember to distinguish between color > and knowledge of color (Requires a different term to not be qualia blind so > ?colorness?). I wasn?t going to do this as it is still broken and not > finished, but part of the a video we are creating on this topic showing how > knowledge of color, or colorness, can be inverted from color is now here > . But at least the play > button works. This shows how ?perception? can be inverted at any point in > the long perception chain, resulting in inverted qualia > . > > > > This shows how all objectively perceived information, even all poetry, is > abstracted away from any physical qualities. The only way to know what a > word like ?redness? means, physically, is to experience it > directly/subjectively, so you can build your own internal dictionary > definition for the word redness. Again, glutamate has both a color > property and a colorness property. Since it reflects white light, its > color is ?white?. But when we are directly aware of it reacting in a > synapse, we are directly aware of its colorness property which is > redness. We have abstract descriptions (even poetry?) of how glutamate > reacts in a synapse, but nothing, yet to tell us the colorness those poetic > descriptions are describing. > > > > John made this very falsifiable (consciousness is not approachable via > science ) > statement: > > > > ?Except for their own qualia EVERYBODY is qualia blind even poets, the > handicap is not limited to physicists and neuroscientists. And *that will > never change*.? > > > > Again, once we have neural ponytails > , that computationally bind > like the corpus callosum, we will direct experience all of the experiences, > not just half. With that we will directly experience whether or not > someone else?s redness is like our greenness or not, just as surely as we > know that physical redness is the same physical redness in both the left > and right hemispheres of our brain. This will be as undeniable as ?I > think, therefor I am.? Direct experience cannot be mistaken/inverted like > ?perception? can. > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 8:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *John Clark via extropy-chat >> >> >> >> Except for their own qualia EVERYBODY is qualia blind even poets, the >> handicap is not limited to physicists and neuroscientists. And that will >> never change. >> >> ? >> >> >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Indeed sir? Ye of little faith. John I can see your qualia, me lad. >> Only recently in history can we do it. We can all go right now into excel >> or something equivalent to it, go into your color wheel where it says ?more >> colors? set the red to 255, the green and blue to zero, and there my >> friends, is the absolute objective definition of RED! What you see there >> is red. No subjectivity left, no wiggle room, the computer people have >> handed us a great gift. >> >> >> >> Do let me go on that for a minute before I dispute John?s notion in >> verse. >> >> >> >> Yesterday was the winter solstice, which is always a time of great >> rejoicing because the darkest days are behind us for the year. Now each >> day, more sunshine returns, lifting our spirits, minute by minute of >> increased access to that glorious fusion reactor in the sky, oh what a >> marvelous time. So we are at the time of the year in which the sun begins >> its annual return, we are at a point in history where mankind is undergoing >> a great awakening, LIGO results are blowing our minds every few weeks, our >> childrens is learnin, we are here, we are alive, and oh life is good. >> >> >> >> John claims even the poets are qualia blind. No way Jose! Set your >> color wheel to 255, 0, 0 and there it is, in all its refulgent glory! >> Here?s a poet?s view for ya: >> >> >> >> There once was a young man named Clark >> >> In science he made his life?s mark >> >> He would often see red >> >> And so it was said >> >> It?s clear he is not in the dark. >> >> >> >> We have been with extropians so long >> >> We knew this routine like a song, >> >> We could see his red qualia >> >> So the notion was folly, a >> >> Lot of us knew it was wrong. >> >> >> >> But we?d rather talk about that >> >> Than some dreary political spat >> >> So they all played along >> >> And sang the old song >> >> Though some were sharp and some flat. >> >> >> >> There ya go John, proof. Poets can see your qualia. Set that color >> wheel as specified, 255, 0,0 then what you see and what I see are the >> SAME! By definition! Perhaps one must be a poet like your old pal spike >> to eff this ineffable concept. But I see it. I have the eye of a POET! >> >> >> >> I fear the ExI discussion at this merry Newtonmas season has been far not >> silly enough for our standards, so I invite some annual silliness or >> failing that, just some cheerful winter solstice greetings are in order >> such as the one I send to all of you, from the poet laureate of? my house. >> >> >> >> May the new year bring you every happiness, may the joy of fresh LIGO >> results bless your home and family, may the spirit of dynamic optimism move >> your soul, may science and technology infuse your being and lift your >> spirits and we grow together in new understanding. >> >> >> >> spike >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 23 18:55:02 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 10:55:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary Message-ID: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> From: Brent Allsop ubject: Re: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary >?Very nice poem Spike thanks for jumping in? You are quite welcome sir, and note that I am jumping sideways rather than in. I have retitled the thread so that I don?t interfere with the qualia discussion, which I am finding most educational, even if all I have to offer is qualia poetry. Poetry really all I have to offer, for in my head is nothing but equations and poetry: one hemisphere for each. I don?t really understand qualia, never have, even after having read your commentary and the others, because it has no equations to describe it. I know not jack without equations. I really don?t: the whole concept of not-equations on anything, I just don?t grok. Pascal commented the heart knows reasons that reason knows not. Pascal was a math guy! I love his stuff, the triangle and all that, cool! Now he tells me about hearts knowing reason, and I just don?t have it. All I have are the two hemispheres. One is filled with poetry, the other, equations. It?s all I have. I love my bride with equations and poetry. All my heart does is beat. >?I so enjoyed the commentary on being interested in this, over politics, and all that. Our local newspaper has only two sections, today. Politics on in the small front section, and a second larger sports section. Nothing else? Ours too, but opposite: small sports section up front, the rest of it all politics, nothing else. It is kinda interesting in a way: most of their circulation is from subscription now. They used to publish paper copies, and still do I am told, a few of them, but it is no longer seen in driveways, no more of those coin paper machines, all of it, gone. >?Also, last night at a neighborhood Christmas party, I asked why the US needs more than 10 aircraft carriers (they have 11)? I know! To carry all those aircraft out to sea. Secondary benefit: to give jobs to all those sailors. What are they supposed to do otherwise? Get actual jobs? >?But that just opened a flood gate of fear mongering, worshipping how things used to be (evidently everything today is worn out)? As soon as I hear anyone argue that anything used to be better (with the possible exception of popular music) I already know that person is beyond reason. In the olden days everything sucked compared to now (temporarily ignoring that awful hip-hop rap business, oy vey who the hell ordered that?) >? and a bunch of fear about China (as if they are going to invade the US and militarily force us to be communist? Never happen. Americans are armed to the teeth. We will fight the commies every step! >? (LOL, they were saying all this fear mongering about china, while at the same time talking about how we can?t even force puny Afghanistan to adopt our form of government.)? Brent, the thing that really surprises me is that so few people understand the nature of modern warfare. It has little to do with ships, planes, sailors snapping sharp salutes and swabbing the decks and all that. All of that is irrelevant as hell. China can?t even conquer Hong Kong, but Hong Kong might well conquer China. The commies see what those island people have, and they want that. Capitalism creeps in from all sides. >?It is often very draining to be in Utah. You guys make it possible, even enjoyable to survive? Unnecessarily grim, me lad! I will say it: I love Utah. My bride and I have gone there to spend time in the archives, back in the days before the internet made it unnecessary to go there, and we loved it. The people were so nice, we toured the LDS temple, listened to their pitches, and of course the religion part thing didn?t do it for me, but that family life stuff was so good, we both loved it. We watched their videos, loved em. You go to the archives there and those nice people will help you, not even anything they are doing professionally, just volunteers being nice and cheerful and good and kind and everything I try to be now. The LDS people working at the archives were doing good deeds and didn?t even know it: they inspire flaming atheists to live like they do and act like they do, even if we don?t believe like they do. Brent do pass along my thanks if you know any kind-hearted souls doing that. Archive volunteers: we flamers love you all. I have been involved in the whole ancestry thing deeply since DNA came along, and so I am on the phone occasionally with Ancestry.com, an LDS company, and oh such nice people on their help line. I already have a strategy: when I get my self-driving car track set up with the intentionally slick surface and the artificial smoke and racy noise cars, I will call the Ancestry.com helpline and raid their company for employees, tell they can work from home in that beautiful state of Utah (which it is) go to their own church and all that, then take orders and reservations for crazy yahoos (with far too much money (which wants to be in my pocket)) who want to tear around and play racecar driver, but be safe about it and get funny videos of themselves shrieking yaaaaaa and barfing and all that. I will raid Ancestry.com because their helpline people are the nicest most lovable sorts, you want to reach across and hug em. Brent, you live in Utha, so you get all that, all the time, free, me lad. What?s not to like? So you hafta listen to their inane prattling once in a while about all these carriers we need for some mysterious reason, well hell, imagine you were here in California and you must replace every single pronoun with he, she or it and his, her or its. Oh that makes speech clumsy. Then if you have a special peeve about people using ?they? and ?their? for the genderless singular, oh the suffering is intense. What?s a poor grammar gestapo to do? Shriek in pain? Tried that, they won?t stop. Cruel they are, callous, just relentlessly wicked, merciless. Somehow I struggle on, and focus on LIGO. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 19:24:36 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:24:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: > > > > spike says: > > All I have are the two hemispheres. One is filled with poetry, the > other, equations. It?s all I have. I love my bride with equations and > poetry. All my heart does is beat. > > Au contraire - you have a limbic system. Don't you math guys love > equations? Limbic system. Aren't some equations more elegant than > others? Limbic system. How about sex (not gender). Limbic system. Great > food. LImbic system and so on. > Pascal commented the heart knows reasons that reason knows not. Limbic system. KNown to Hume - far ahead of his time. Emotion more important then reason. Proved just recently in cortex studies. > > > As soon as I hear anyone argue that anything used to be better (with the > possible exception of popular music) I already know that person is beyond > reason. In the olden days everything sucked compared to now (temporarily > ignoring that awful hip-hop rap business, oy vey who the hell ordered that?) > Fact - our musical tastes tend to gel around the age of 35. > > > >? (LOL, they were saying all this fear mongering about china, while at > the same time talking about how we can?t even force puny Afghanistan to > adopt our form of government.)? > Those people are about as far away from being ready for democracy as they can get. Tribalism is what they know. > > you must replace every single pronoun with he, she or it and his, her or > its. Oh that makes speech clumsy. Then if you have a special peeve about > people using ?they? and ?their? for the genderless singular, oh the > suffering is intense. What?s a poor grammar gestapo to do? Shriek in > pain? Tried that, they won?t stop. Cruel they are, callous, just > relentlessly wicked, merciless. > > Using they etc. for the singular is as old as Shakespeare, who did it > first. > bill w > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 20:31:11 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 13:31:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: OH, yes. All so true. Thanks for pointing all that out. And to understand qualia, just ask yourself what is it that is qualitatively red? While remembering that you can invert perception as proven here . On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:55 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* Brent Allsop > *ubject:* Re: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary > > > > > > > > >?Very nice poem Spike thanks for jumping in? > > > > You are quite welcome sir, and note that I am jumping sideways rather than > in. I have retitled the thread so that I don?t interfere with the qualia > discussion, which I am finding most educational, even if all I have to > offer is qualia poetry. > > > > Poetry really all I have to offer, for in my head is nothing but equations > and poetry: one hemisphere for each. I don?t really understand qualia, > never have, even after having read your commentary and the others, because > it has no equations to describe it. I know not jack without equations. I > really don?t: the whole concept of not-equations on anything, I just don?t > grok. Pascal commented the heart knows reasons that reason knows not. > Pascal was a math guy! I love his stuff, the triangle and all that, cool! > Now he tells me about hearts knowing reason, and I just don?t have it. All > I have are the two hemispheres. One is filled with poetry, the other, > equations. It?s all I have. I love my bride with equations and poetry. > All my heart does is beat. > > > > > > >?I so enjoyed the commentary on being interested in this, over politics, > and all that. Our local newspaper has only two sections, today. Politics > on in the small front section, and a second larger sports section. Nothing > else? > > > > Ours too, but opposite: small sports section up front, the rest of it all > politics, nothing else. It is kinda interesting in a way: most of their > circulation is from subscription now. They used to publish paper copies, > and still do I am told, a few of them, but it is no longer seen in > driveways, no more of those coin paper machines, all of it, gone. > > > > > > >?Also, last night at a neighborhood Christmas party, I asked why the US > needs more than 10 aircraft carriers (they have 11)? > > > > I know! To carry all those aircraft out to sea. Secondary benefit: to > give jobs to all those sailors. What are they supposed to do otherwise? > Get actual jobs? > > > > > > >?But that just opened a flood gate of fear mongering, worshipping how > things used to be (evidently everything today is worn out)? > > > > As soon as I hear anyone argue that anything used to be better (with the > possible exception of popular music) I already know that person is beyond > reason. In the olden days everything sucked compared to now (temporarily > ignoring that awful hip-hop rap business, oy vey who the hell ordered that?) > > > > > > >? and a bunch of fear about China (as if they are going to invade the US > and militarily force us to be communist? > > > > Never happen. Americans are armed to the teeth. We will fight the > commies every step! > > > > >? (LOL, they were saying all this fear mongering about china, while at > the same time talking about how we can?t even force puny Afghanistan to > adopt our form of government.)? > > > > Brent, the thing that really surprises me is that so few people understand > the nature of modern warfare. It has little to do with ships, planes, > sailors snapping sharp salutes and swabbing the decks and all that. All of > that is irrelevant as hell. China can?t even conquer Hong Kong, but Hong > Kong might well conquer China. The commies see what those island people > have, and they want that. Capitalism creeps in from all sides. > > > > > > >?It is often very draining to be in Utah. You guys make it possible, > even enjoyable to survive? > > > > Unnecessarily grim, me lad! I will say it: I love Utah. My bride and I > have gone there to spend time in the archives, back in the days before the > internet made it unnecessary to go there, and we loved it. The people were > so nice, we toured the LDS temple, listened to their pitches, and of course > the religion part thing didn?t do it for me, but that family life stuff was > so good, we both loved it. We watched their videos, loved em. You go to > the archives there and those nice people will help you, not even anything > they are doing professionally, just volunteers being nice and cheerful and > good and kind and everything I try to be now. The LDS people working at > the archives were doing good deeds and didn?t even know it: they inspire > flaming atheists to live like they do and act like they do, even if we > don?t believe like they do. Brent do pass along my thanks if you know any > kind-hearted souls doing that. Archive volunteers: we flamers love you all. > > > > I have been involved in the whole ancestry thing deeply since DNA came > along, and so I am on the phone occasionally with Ancestry.com, an LDS > company, and oh such nice people on their help line. I already have a > strategy: when I get my self-driving car track set up with the > intentionally slick surface and the artificial smoke and racy noise cars, I > will call the Ancestry.com helpline and raid their company for employees, > tell they can work from home in that beautiful state of Utah (which it is) > go to their own church and all that, then take orders and reservations for > crazy yahoos (with far too much money (which wants to be in my pocket)) who > want to tear around and play racecar driver, but be safe about it and get > funny videos of themselves shrieking yaaaaaa and barfing and all that. I > will raid Ancestry.com because their helpline people are the nicest most > lovable sorts, you want to reach across and hug em. > > > > Brent, you live in Utha, so you get all that, all the time, free, me lad. > What?s not to like? So you hafta listen to their inane prattling once in a > while about all these carriers we need for some mysterious reason, well > hell, imagine you were here in California and you must replace every single > pronoun with he, she or it and his, her or its. Oh that makes speech > clumsy. Then if you have a special peeve about people using ?they? and > ?their? for the genderless singular, oh the suffering is intense. What?s a > poor grammar gestapo to do? Shriek in pain? Tried that, they won?t stop. > Cruel they are, callous, just relentlessly wicked, merciless. > > > > Somehow I struggle on, and focus on LIGO. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 20:32:08 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 15:32:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: <023e01d5b9a7$cfc181a0$6f4484e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 1:11 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I wasn?t going to do this as it is still broken and not finished, but > part of the a video we are creating on this topic showing how knowledge of > color, or colorness, can be inverted from color is now here > . * Maybe it's because it's not finished but I don't see what the point was that the video was trying to convey. If your qualia of red and green are inverted (zero and one are inverted as symbols that stand for those 2 qualia) and if the inversion is consistent and includes memories of those qualia then I objectively can not notice any change in your behavior that resulted from the inversion, and you subjectively can not tell that anything has changed either. As a result I would humbly suggest that if objectively it makes no difference and subjectively it makes no difference then it would be safe to say it just makes no difference. And of course if the inversion happened twice, as seems to be the case in the video, then no effective change of any sort has been made and you're right back where you started. > *> Again, once we have neural ponytails > , that computationally bind > like the corpus callosum,* > I saw the movie too and I thought it was fun but as I explained in a previous post I don't see how that could help Brent Allsop figure out what it's like for John Clark to experience the red qualia. *> This will be as undeniable as ?I think, therefor I am.? Direct > experience cannot be mistaken/inverted like ?perception? can.* If the inversion has not fooled objectivity and it has not fooled subjectivity either then direct experience has not been inverted at all, only the arbitrary symbolic convention that stands for them has. Suppose I could snap my fingers and make just one change to the entire world, the words "cat" and "dog" are now reversed, that means it's changed in every book in the world and in everybody's memory of ever having used those two words. Nobody would notice a thing after I snapped my fingers and the world would continue to chug along exactly as it always has. In fact I actually have that superpower and have just snapped my fingers. Did you notice any difference? I am Reverse Cat Dog Man, considering that I have such an awesome power and look great in tights I don't understand why The Avengers won't let me join. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 23 20:34:23 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 12:34:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> >?And to understand qualia, just ask yourself what is it that is qualitatively red? (255,0,0) Finally, a qualia question I can answer. (255,0,0) = = red. Note the innovative symbol = =. That isn?t just equal. That is an Orwellian more equal than others. It is read (255,0,0) is extremely equal to red. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 21:19:20 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 15:19:20 -0600 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:48 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > >?And to understand qualia, just ask yourself what is it that is > qualitatively red? > > > > > > (255,0,0) > > > > Finally, a qualia question I can answer. (255,0,0) = = red. > > > > Note the innovative symbol = =. That isn?t just equal. That is an > Orwellian more equal than others. It is read (255,0,0) is extremely equal > to red. > > > > spike > > > > Well, Spike, if that's qualitatively red, what's quantitatively red? I > thought we were going under the assumption that qualia were not objectively > observable. They were the same as subjective experience. > > bill w > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 23 21:25:05 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 14:25:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: This is not hard abstract rocket science. It is as simple as when your preschool teacher pointed to the red crayon and said: "THAT is red." [probably in your case said: THAT is (255,0,0)] ;) In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red. You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical definition to those abstract terms. You may then say when I tell my screen (255,0,0) it emits "red" light, and this defines (255,0,0) physically. But you still need to distinguish between red light and knowledge of red light in our brains. A little more complex, but only twice as hard as the trivial "THAT crayon is (255,0,0)" and certainly not the "hard mind body problem" everyone incorrectly thinks it is. Your partner's qualitative knowledge of (255,0,0) could be === to your physical knowledge of (0,255,0). (you often handle way more than 1 level of dereference in rocket science, right?) (=== represents the "3. strongest" form of effing the ineffable) In that case there is a neural ponytail computationally binding the actual physical knowledge in your partner's brain so you can directly experienced it all, not just half. In other words you will be directly aware of the the physical redness in your partners brain, the same as both of her hemispheres are directly aware that physical redness in one hemisphere is === to the physical redness in her other. "=" means connected with a wire that can communicate abstractly. The receiver must qualitatively interpret the wired (255, 0, 0) abstract data correctly. Knowing the physical definition of (255,0,0) is the "1. week form" of effing the ineffable. "===": connected with a computational binding system so you can directly experience the actual physics on both sides of the connection at the same time as a unified composite conscious experience of both redness and greenness. This is what the corpus callosum does when it enables you to experience physical knowledge in both hemispheres of your brain at the same time as one composite qualitative experience of a rainbow filling both halves of your visual field. On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 1:34 PM wrote: > > > >?And to understand qualia, just ask yourself what is it that is > qualitatively red? > > > > > > (255,0,0) > > > > Finally, a qualia question I can answer. (255,0,0) = = red. > > > > Note the innovative symbol = =. That isn?t just equal. That is an > Orwellian more equal than others. It is read (255,0,0) is extremely equal > to red. > > > > spike > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 04:51:26 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 22:51:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I don?t understand why you are completely unwilling to take people?s feelings into account. Failing to do that is a major component of the resistance to science. Pure logic does not get the majority of people to change their opinion, personal emotional appeals do that. The failure of yourself and people like you to understand the emotions at play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. The other factor is ignorance. You are doing nothing but boring us by repeating something we already know you believe. Why say it again? What good does it do? You, also, are being overly emotional. Why should the Hawaiian protesters allow anything if they feel the person (people / system) doing it to them is not respecting them? I wouldn?t allow a doctor to study me or a teacher to tutor me if they disrespected me. SR Ballard > On Dec 23, 2019, at 6:38 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:30 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: > >>> >> As I said, explaining that some native Hawaiians are behaving in a stupid barbaric and parochial way today now due to something that happened in 1893 may be true but it doesn't make the current behavior one bit less stupid barbaric and parochial. >> >> > As I wrote, 1893 is just one of the early dates. And my point was that this was not literally centuries ago. > > I don't care if it happened yesterday because explaining why somebody is stupid barbaric and parochial does not make them one bit less stupid barbaric and parochial. > >>> >> And I still don't understand why westerners learning less about the universe will make up for an injustice committed by them in 1893. I hope you don't think only westerners would have any interest in such things. >> >> >> > I?m not sure it would, > > Well I'm very sure it would NOT! The Hawaiian protestor's motto seems to be "we will keep humanity from acquiring new knowledge until they respect us", and that motto will work just about as well as another motto, "The beatings will continue until morale improves". > >> > but my post was about trying to understand the history > > Why what's the point? You could know all there is to know about their history and understand exactly why they behave as they do, but at the end of the day they're still stupid barbaric and parochial, the only difference is that now after all that study you know why they're stupid barbaric and parochial. > >> > these invaders might go further and class you as a barbarians, part of an ignorant mob > > I make absolutely NO apology for calling a group of people who destroyed a magnificent monument to the better nature of the Human race like the Thirty Meter Telescope and shut down the world's premiere optical observatory for nearly 2 months for the first time in over half a century because astronomers feared for their lives a ignorant barbaric parochial mob. > >> > Would that argument sway you? I?m guessing it wouldn?t. > > I don't think any argument of mine would sway that ignorant barbaric mob, at least not an argument based on logic. A cock and bull story about another invisible man who was more powerful and wanted more telescopes might work, but I'm not very good at concocting such tales. > >> > The main issues here for me are the colonization and the justice ones. That seems to be what you?re missing. > > What I'm missing is understanding how preventing the Human race from better understanding its place in the universe can ameliorate a past injustice, nor can I understand why so many people who like to think of themselves as forward thinking and enlightened have a knee jerk reaction to defend the evil forces of the anti-enlightenment, provided of course that it's not part of their own culture. By the way, I don't use the word "evil" a lot but I think it's appropriate in this case. > >> > You?re setting aside, again, as if science is a card that trumps all other concerns. > > It sure as hell trumps the concern that an invisible man on a mountain will be annoyed by a telescope! > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 06:18:36 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 01:18:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019, 23:53 SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I don?t understand why you are completely unwilling to take people?s > feelings into account. Failing to do that is a major component of the > resistance to science. Pure logic does not get the majority of people to > change their opinion, personal emotional appeals do that. > > The failure of yourself and people like you to understand the emotions at > play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. The other factor is > ignorance. > > You are doing nothing but boring us by repeating something we already know > you believe. Why say it again? What good does it do? You, also, are being > overly emotional. > > Why should the Hawaiian protesters allow anything if they feel the person > (people / system) doing it to them is not respecting them? I wouldn?t allow > a doctor to study me or a teacher to tutor me if they disrespected me. > > SR Ballard > Chance that solipsism-bot John gives this any thought: 0%, unless you count the thought it takes to snip a quote of yours out of context and reply to it. SUCH AS: "The failure of yourself and people like you to understand the emotions at play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. The other factor is ignorance." Response: "If we're talking about ignorance, I can't think of much worse than those who are so ignorant of the cosmos that they deny us the ability to view it because of some moronic ancient superstition! (P.S. I ignored your entire post LOL rekt!!!!)" John is the biggest troll on the list but he got trolled by ancient Hawaiian religious beliefs. Lol btfo git gud > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 07:03:25 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:03:25 +0800 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?A_Surveillance_Net_Blankets_China=E2=80=99s_Citi?= =?utf-8?q?es=2C_Giving_Police_Vast_Powers?= Message-ID: China has technological powers to spy on their own citizens, in ways the old Soviet Union could only dream about... I suppose it will only get much worse, before it ever gets better... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/technology/china-surveillance.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 07:05:23 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:05:23 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Artificial Intelligence Is Superseding Well-Paying Wall Street Jobs Message-ID: And this is only the beginning... What should we expect over the next few decades? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/12/10/artificial-intelligence-is-superseding-well-paying-wall-street-jobs/?fbclid=IwAR1zItIfWM85fQt6eWSm2MRrnABTSq9QA99LURlmmr-h3-GFvDm0eltfIG8#64aa039b524d -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 07:07:40 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 15:07:40 +0800 Subject: [ExI] How William Gibson Keeps His Science Fiction Real Message-ID: "Midway through his career, the inventor of ?cyberspace? turned his attention to a strange new world: the present." I recently heard the term "nowspace" being used! Lol https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/16/how-william-gibson-keeps-his-science-fiction-real?fbclid=IwAR3kn3o8LYP9wd5_fsqc19tr1mlWs9-CC3Iqw5CsR0FeAEsA_nWcjAauZO0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 07:35:53 2019 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig@pobox.com) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 18:35:53 +1100 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 23:46, John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 9:30 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> You?re setting aside, again, as if science is a card that trumps all >> other concerns.* >> > > It sure as hell trumps the concern that an invisible man on a mountain > will be annoyed by a telescope! > This is such a weird discussion. I think everyone here agrees that having the telescope up would be a good thing, but you are completely ignoring the single most important factor in anything humans do, anywhere, at any time: the politics of the situation. *> You?re setting aside, again, as if science is a card that trumps all >> other concerns.* >> > > It sure as hell trumps the concern that an invisible man on a mountain > will be annoyed by a telescope! > No, it obviously does NOT trump it, otherwise the telescope would be built, wouldn't it? Short of using force (police/military) the only way you're going to get people to do something, if they have any control over the process, is to make them want the thing to happen. The hawaiians are pissed off (I have no idea what they are pissed off about due to utter lack of interest - it does not matter what they are pissed off about), so they said no. Appeals to logic and science and etc etc don't work when emotion is involved. And here we are. Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://fav.me/dqkgpd our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 13:44:31 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 08:44:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:54 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *Pure logic does not get the majority of people to change their opinion, > personal emotional appeals do that.* > I know perfectly well that logic is a very weak tool to use in politics and emotions rule the day, but I also know that I'm just not very good at emotional appeals, so I do what I can. * > the emotions at play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. The > other factor is ignorance.* > I agree, and recent events have made me see more clearly how strongly our culture has moved in the anti-science/pro-ignorance direction, the tendency even shows up on the Extropian List which you'd expect to be fiercely pro-science/anti-ignorance, and at one time it certainly was but no more. Since my last post on this subject there have been 3 responses and all of them criticized me for being too logical and all of them empathised with the ignorant anti-science mob, not one of them empathised with the astronomers who not only could no longer do their work of finding out more about the universe but actually feared for their lives. This epidemic of worshiping ignorance is getting downright scary, I saw a clip from Fox News a few days ago where they were interviewing a strong rank and file Trump suporter and asked her "Do you think the impeachment will hurt Trump in the election?". The woman, wearing a MAGA hat and a Trump button, replied "Yes but only among those who care about facts". Neither the woman or the reporter who asked the question seemed to think she had said anything unusual, and the fact is in this day and age she hadn't said anything unusual at all, and that's what's so depressing. The fact that a contrary attitude can no longer be found even on the Extropian List is rather melancholy and reduces my hope for the future. > *> You are doing nothing but boring us * > I'm either more honest than you or I understand emotions better than you. Nobody writes long irate posts about something that bores them, they write long irate posts about something that angers them. The Hawaiian protestors don't bore me, if they did I wouldn't take the time to write about them, they anger me. And my posts anger you. > *> You, also, are being overly emotional.* > If so then what are you complaining about? You should be pleased that I'm taking you're suggestion and throwing logic and knowledge out the window and just emoteing. *> Why should the Hawaiian protesters allow anything if they feel the > person (people / system) doing it to them is not respecting them?* > There are not always "good people on both sides" and it is my policy not to respect people or mobs that behave in a disreputable manner, I believe it is a logical policy that I intend to continue. > *> I wouldn?t allow a doctor to study me or a teacher to tutor me if they > disrespected me. * > I would if I realized I didn't deserve the teacher's respect, but stupid people usually don't know they're stupid. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 13:47:35 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 05:47:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Oldest known fossil forest Message-ID: <9297DE45-426B-43DF-8222-3FB26B03AFB3@gmail.com> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/19/worlds-oldest-known-fossil-forest-found-in-new-york-quarry Wonder if the insects would?ve been making chirps and the like. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 13:50:30 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 08:50:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:39 AM ddraig--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> This is such a weird discussion. I think everyone here agrees that > having the telescope up would be a good thing, but* [...] > They say you should ignore everything a politician says before "but", I'm starting to think the same thing may be true around here. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 15:31:45 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:31:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Betelgeuse Message-ID: It may mean nothing, it probably means nothing, but ... in the last 4 months Betelgeuse has decreased in brightness, it is now the dimmest it's been in recorded history, and a very rapid dimming is exactly what you'd expect to happen just before a red supergiant goes supernova. When it does go supernova, which it certainly will very soon (astronomically speaking), it will look like nothing ever seen before, brighter than the full moon but with all the light concentrated at a single point. And the TV preachers will have a field day. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 18:03:13 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 10:03:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 5:47 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > there have been 3 responses and all of them criticized me for being too > logical and all of them empathised with the ignorant anti-science mob, not > one of them empathised with the astronomers who not only could no longer do > their work of finding out more about the universe but actually feared for > their lives. > Think of the responses instead as pragmatic. It is desired to get these telescopes in place. However, that can't happen without dealing with local politics. Ignoring them and attempting to order construction has been attempted, and failed. That this approach should not have failed is not worth further discussion: it did fail, and would fail again if attempted again. That is the situation that must be dealt with. Given that this must be dealt with, it would be more useful to contemplate ways of dealing with it and getting the telescope built. (Or finding alternatives to building the telescope there. I suggest in orbit or on the Moon - as difficult as that is, it may be simpler than dealing with those politics, would give a better result, and might even be cheaper.) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 21:09:13 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:09:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 1:06 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> That is the situation that must be dealt with. Given that this must be > dealt with, it would be more useful to contemplate ways of dealing with it > and getting the telescope built.* > It's hopeless, tribal politics and the anti-science movement is simply too strong, it's over they've won and that telescope will never be built. > *Or finding alternatives to building the telescope there. I suggest in > orbit or on the Moon* > Forget it! That would increase the cost by a factor of a hundred, so nothing even remotely like that is ever going to happen in the Trump administration which cut the budget of The National Science Foundation by 12% and is trying to get it to kill it's funding of the many large observatories it operates. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 22:40:35 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2019 14:40:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 1:12 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > It's hopeless, tribal politics and the anti-science movement is simply too > strong, it's over they've won and that telescope will never be built. > This is only true if one refuses to engage in the politics. It's like trying to make a car run without fuel, and refusing to actually think about what's needed to provide fuel. > > *Or finding alternatives to building the telescope there. I suggest in >> orbit or on the Moon* >> > > Forget it! That would increase the cost by a factor of a hundred, so > nothing even remotely like that is ever going to happen in the Trump > administration which cut the budget of The National Science Foundation by > 12% and is trying to get it to kill it's funding of the many large > observatories it operates. > There are ways to do it cheaper - and one of the very few areas of science that Trump has been shown to embrace is all things space. Even if it were to cost more, it might still be possible to get a budget by exploiting that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbard at wisc.edu Wed Dec 25 07:55:28 2019 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 07:55:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday, Issac Newton Message-ID: ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/newton.jpg From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 14:17:52 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 09:17:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Looking back at Heinlein's Future History - coming true before our eyes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 2:02 AM John Grigg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > "*I began to sense faintly that secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. > Not force, but secrecy ... censorship." * > I think that is basically true because tyranny can not survive the truth and over the long term a Free Press is self correcting and tends to move in that general direction. That's why if I had my way I'd get rid of the libel laws, all libel laws. But Trump wants to expand the libel laws to include any criticism of the President but of course retaining the right of a President to say Barack Obama was not born in the USA or that a US Senator's father killed John Kennedy: We're going to 'open up' libel laws And Trump said members of Congress who didn't applaud during his State Of The Union Speech were guilty of treason, the dictator of North Korea would agree with him completely: Trump calls not applauding his State of the Union ?treason? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Dec 25 14:41:16 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 06:41:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Looking back at Heinlein's Future History - coming true before our eyes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00d401d5bb31$5d63a260$182ae720$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat ? That's why if I had my way I'd get rid of the libel laws, all libel laws. But Trump wants ? John, you were doing so well. Agreed Heinlein?s visions of the future were stunning. I see his contribution as having moved SciFi from being all spaceships and ray guns, kids stuff really, to be more of its own legitimate genre: http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Heinlein/Future-History.html His best work was later than this however. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 17:23:11 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 11:23:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Looking back at Heinlein's Future History - coming true before our eyes. In-Reply-To: <00d401d5bb31$5d63a260$182ae720$@rainier66.com> References: <00d401d5bb31$5d63a260$182ae720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: spike wrote - best work was later than this however. Agreed Heinlein?s visions of the future were stunning. I see his contribution as having moved SciFi from being all spaceships and ray guns, kids stuff really, to be more of its own legitimate genre I wonder what kids thought of his later works - incest, homosexuality, orgies. We know that in 'real life' he had sex parties, swapped wives, was a closet nudist (what does that mean?). All of which bothers me not at all, real life or fiction. But none of his later works won any prizes, I think. If you read Grumbles from the Grave and the one about his trip to Australia, he could be a super neurotic grouch and obsessive-compulsive. It must have been hard to be around him and follow all his customs and manners and rules. He was a genre writer and a great one. I wonder what his fiction might have been had he written some mainstream books. Still great, I think. bill w On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 8:44 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark via extropy-chat > *?* That's why if I had my way I'd get rid of the libel laws, all libel > laws. But Trump wants ? > > > > > > John, you were doing so well. > > > > Agreed Heinlein?s visions of the future were stunning. I see his > contribution as having moved SciFi from being all spaceships and ray guns, > kids stuff really, to be more of its own legitimate genre: > > > > http://www.troynovant.com/Franson/Heinlein/Future-History.html > > > > His best work was later than this however. > > > > 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 Wed Dec 25 17:45:55 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 09:45:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Looking back at Heinlein's Future History - coming true before our eyes. In-Reply-To: References: <00d401d5bb31$5d63a260$182ae720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001901d5bb4b$2938d770$7baa8650$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of >>?spike wrote - best work was later than this however. Agreed Heinlein?s visions of the future were stunning. I see his contribution as having moved SciFi from being all spaceships and ray guns, kids stuff really, to be more of its own legitimate genre >?I wonder what kids thought of his later works - incest, homosexuality, orgies. We know that in 'real life' he had sex parties, swapped wives, was a closet nudist (what does that mean?). All of which bothers me not at all, real life or fiction. But none of his later works won any prizes, I think. If you read Grumbles from the Grave and the one about his trip to Australia, he could be a super neurotic grouch and obsessive-compulsive. It must have been hard to be around him and follow all his customs and manners and rules. He was a genre writer and a great one. I wonder what his fiction might have been had he written some mainstream books. Still great, I think. bill w This is something I have often pondered. I heard of Heinlein?s weirdness, but wrote it off, ignored it, noting that weirdness is very common among celebrities and artists. I can only think of one real exception: the actor Jimmy Stewart: great actor, great person, love him. The rest of them: crazy, to a man. Weird. Can?t relate. Consider the actors/performers who play a role-model sort of persona. Do let me skip Bill Cosby please, draw the curtain of mercy upon that scene, for our sake. Consider the character played by singer John Denver: wholesome upstanding lad, ja? Outdoors, conservation, all the things I am about, loved his music. If you are in that situation, do not read his autobiography. Hold the pleasant illusion. One cannot unread Denver?s autobio, but suffice it to say, I would be grateful had he stayed in character and written as John Denver rather than John Deuchendorf, and had he not opened his heart. Read Jimmy Stewart?s life instead. We long for entertainers and writers we can actually respect as people. Heinlein: the orgy stuff, oy vey, I don?t see why that is SciFi. If we wish to theorize that society will cast off all social taboos as a result of robust birth control, well OK then, if we must. Hurray for us, we did it. Are we enlightened yet? I kinda liked it better in some ways being unenlightened. The music was better. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 21:55:58 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 14:55:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Betelgeuse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wow, very interesting. Is it true that if Betelgeuse was at the location of our sun, Earth would be inside of it? On Tue, Dec 24, 2019, 8:34 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > It may mean nothing, it probably means nothing, but ... in the last 4 > months Betelgeuse has decreased in brightness, it is now the dimmest it's > been in recorded history, and a very rapid dimming is exactly what you'd > expect to happen just before a red supergiant goes supernova. When it does > go supernova, which it certainly will very soon (astronomically speaking), > it will look like nothing ever seen before, brighter than the full moon but > with all the light concentrated at a single point. And the TV preachers > will have a field day. > > 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 Dec 25 23:40:03 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 18:40:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Betelgeuse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 4:59 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Wow, very interesting.* > *Is it true that if Betelgeuse was at the location of our sun, Earth would > be inside of it?* > Betelgeuse is so huge even Jupiter would be inside it. It probably won't happen soon but that dimming is a little suspicious and it's at a perfect distance (650 light years) from us to go supernova, far enough to be safe but close enough to put on a great show. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Dec 26 01:01:18 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 17:01:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Betelgeuse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007b01d5bb87$fbb3a090$f31ae1b0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Betelgeuse On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 4:59 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat > wrote: > Wow, very interesting. Is it true that if Betelgeuse was at the location of our sun, Earth would be inside of it? Betelgeuse is so huge even Jupiter would be inside it. It probably won't happen soon but that dimming is a little suspicious and it's at a perfect distance (650 light years) from us to go supernova, far enough to be safe but close enough to put on a great show. John K Clark It is really tenuous out there. The planets could continue to orbit for a while inside the star. Fat lotta good it would do em, but they could stay in a gradually spiraling orbit while they cook to vapor. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 09:31:46 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 04:31:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:54 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I don?t understand why you are completely unwilling to take people?s > feelings into account. Failing to do that is a major component of the > resistance to science. Pure logic does not get the majority of people to > change their opinion, personal emotional appeals do that. > > The failure of yourself and people like you to understand the emotions at > play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. > ### I sure understand their emotions and I despise those emotions too. There is no reason why understanding evil should lead to acceptance of evil, should it? Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 09:54:59 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 04:54:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 195, Issue 5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 14, 2019 at 10:25 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > > Such genetic supremacy against the poor is dancing on the edge of a knife > and ends in genocide. > > ### Isn't it funny how the smart people always genocide the stupid ones? Like Germans, who are very smart, gassing Jews, who are... actually smarter than Germans? Or the genius Turks, exterminating the dumb Armenians? Obviously, if we have more smart children, they come up with the smartest solution to all problems - kill everybody, no? Because if nobody's there, nobody can cause problems. Yes, we really need to have only really stupid children, as it is well known that those with IQ below 30 are unlikely to kill anybody. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 12:53:40 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 07:53:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:35 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *### I sure understand their emotions and I despise those emotions too.* > Well said! *> There is no reason why understanding evil should lead to acceptance of > evil, should it?* > No logical reason whatsoever. If somebody's actions will obviously lead to a net increase in the amount of ignorance in the world and without even a hint of a compensating advantage then I have absolutely no problem with labeling that action as evil; and it's nice to see someone else who isn't afraid to use that word when it's appropriate as it certainly is in the case of the destruction of the Thirty Meter Telescope. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 16:39:50 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 11:39:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red. You > need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical > definition to those abstract terms. * > If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of the most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, you've got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads to circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe tomato and say "That is (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". If I were to make a change in that convention so that now the color of a ripe tomato was (0, 0, 255) then your objective behavior would not change and subjectively you could not even tell that a change had been made. So if objectively the inversion is not important and subjectively it's nor important either then the inversion was just not important. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 17:22:02 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 11:22:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I think it's only circular if there is only one example. bill w On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red. >> You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical >> definition to those abstract terms. * >> > > If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of the > most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, you've > got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads to > circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe tomato > and say "That is (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". If I were to make a change in > that convention so that now the color of a ripe tomato was (0, 0, 255) then > your objective behavior would not change and subjectively you could not > even tell that a change had been made. So if objectively the inversion is > not important and subjectively it's nor important either then the inversion > was just not important. > > 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 Thu Dec 26 17:46:05 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 09:46:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] i am software: wasRE: utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary Message-ID: <012b01d5bc14$592e9310$0b8bb930$@rainier66.com> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat > wrote: On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat > wrote: >>>? In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red. You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical definition to those abstract terms. >>?If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of the most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, you've got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads to circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe tomato and say "That is (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". ? John K Clark John K Clark ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary >?I think it's only circular if there is only one example. bill w The entire discussion has helped me accept what I have long suspected: I am a digital avatar. I ?think? only in terms of numbers and equations. You perhaps have heard of that creepy movie where the boy saw dead people, everywhere, walking around. They didn?t even know they are dead. Well, I am his digital counterpart: I see simulated people walking around everywhere. They don?t even know they are software. I didn?t know I was one until the recent qualia discussion. Be that as it may, I am a really cool avatar. Self-aware I am! (Or should it be ?it am?? (It are? (It be?))) Of course it be only digitally simulated self-awareness, but that?s better than none at all. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 17:55:50 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 10:55:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill, On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:30 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I think it's only circular if there is only one example. bill w > What do you mean by "Only one example"? All information we have, all informant in all computers today, and all information we get through our senses is abstract information. Anything can represent it, but only if you have an interpretation mechanism to know what it means. Everything in the perception process is abstract. Thit is, up until the brain makes its final qualitative interpretation: ?Do I represent this pixel of conscious information with physical redness or physical greenness?? What our brain chooses to represent conscious information with is what makes consciousness substrate dependent. Sure, a red/green qualia invert can function indistinguishably from another, but subjectively one is physically different than the other. And as I keep saying: There is no ?Hard Mind Body Problem?, it?s just a color problem. All physicists and neuroscientists of perception, and all the information they provide to us are ?qualia blind?. It is all no different than everything Frank Jackson's Mary knows. Of all the things experimentalists observe and describe, they never can tell us which of those is a description of redness, and how this differs from greenness. And again: You don't perceive colorness, colorness is the final physical result of conscious perception. It is the physical quality of the physics our brain decides to represent conscious information with. We are directly aware of it. Perception can be mistaken, and requires qualitative interpretation. Physical redness just is the quality of some set of physics. You need to define a word like red. And physical redness is that definition. > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> > *In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red. >>> You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical >>> definition to those abstract terms. * >>> >> >> If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of the >> most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, you've >> got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads to >> circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe tomato >> and say "That is (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". If I were to make a change in >> that convention so that now the color of a ripe tomato was (0, 0, 255) then >> your objective behavior would not change and subjectively you could not >> even tell that a change had been made. So if objectively the inversion is >> not important and subjectively it's nor important either then the inversion >> was just not important. >> >> 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 atymes at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 18:24:42 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 10:24:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:34 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:54 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I don?t understand why you are completely unwilling to take people?s >> feelings into account. Failing to do that is a major component of the >> resistance to science. Pure logic does not get the majority of people to >> change their opinion, personal emotional appeals do that. >> >> The failure of yourself and people like you to understand the emotions at >> play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. >> > > ### I sure understand their emotions and I despise those emotions too. > > There is no reason why understanding evil should lead to acceptance of > evil, should it? > Merely opposing evil will not get evil people to stop their ways. If there are enough of them with enough power, then in order to accomplish good, one must plan for how to convert them to good. Understanding their evil is necessary to get them to convert. In other words, mere blind opposition of opposing views will not work in some cases. This is one of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 19:51:54 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 13:51:54 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <62144361-24B0-400B-9D1A-A4D52163F94D@gmail.com> You?re being extremely smug and self-righteous but what does it help? You?re patting your back over being morally and intellectually better, which you consider to be the same. That?s nice. But what is a SOLUTION to the issue at hand? What would you suggest? Do you want the National Guard to patrol the mountain with tanks and give the scientists armed escorts and have them live in fear of terrorist attacks? Is that the solution to this problem? What do you suggest? SR Ballard > On Dec 26, 2019, at 6:53 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:35 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > ### I sure understand their emotions and I despise those emotions too. > > Well said! > >> > There is no reason why understanding evil should lead to acceptance of evil, should it? > > No logical reason whatsoever. If somebody's actions will obviously lead to a net increase in the amount of ignorance in the world and without even a hint of a compensating advantage then I have absolutely no problem with labeling that action as evil; and it's nice to see someone else who isn't afraid to use that word when it's appropriate as it certainly is in the case of the destruction of the Thirty Meter Telescope. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 21:00:38 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:00:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Adrian wrote - In other words, mere blind opposition of opposing views will not work in some cases. This is one of them. I don't think that will ever work. People do flip to an entirely different view, but this is really rare, especially if the views are strong enough to support going to a demonstration or protest. They need to be moved little by little (like Skinner's successive approximations technique) bill w On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:27 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:34 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:54 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I don?t understand why you are completely unwilling to take people?s >>> feelings into account. Failing to do that is a major component of the >>> resistance to science. Pure logic does not get the majority of people to >>> change their opinion, personal emotional appeals do that. >>> >>> The failure of yourself and people like you to understand the emotions >>> at play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. >>> >> >> ### I sure understand their emotions and I despise those emotions too. >> >> There is no reason why understanding evil should lead to acceptance of >> evil, should it? >> > > Merely opposing evil will not get evil people to stop their ways. If > there are enough of them with enough power, then in order to accomplish > good, one must plan for how to convert them to good. Understanding their > evil is necessary to get them to convert. > > In other words, mere blind opposition of opposing views will not work in > some cases. This is one of them. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 21:14:29 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:14:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I?m not sure that?s true. I went to some protests when I was younger that I?m not so sure I would go to today, if there was an exact same one. In this instance: Tea Party, Occupy, etc. knowing what I know now about how they turned out. Would probably still do FNB and worker?s rights though. SR Ballard > On Dec 26, 2019, at 3:00 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Adrian wrote - In other words, mere blind opposition of opposing views will not work in some cases. This is one of them. > > I don't think that will ever work. People do flip to an entirely different view, but this is really rare, especially if the views are strong enough to support going to a demonstration or protest. They need to be moved little by little (like Skinner's successive approximations technique) > bill w > >> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:27 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:34 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:54 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> I don?t understand why you are completely unwilling to take people?s feelings into account. Failing to do that is a major component of the resistance to science. Pure logic does not get the majority of people to change their opinion, personal emotional appeals do that. >>>> >>>> The failure of yourself and people like you to understand the emotions at play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. >>> >>> ### I sure understand their emotions and I despise those emotions too. >>> >>> There is no reason why understanding evil should lead to acceptance of evil, should it? >> >> Merely opposing evil will not get evil people to stop their ways. If there are enough of them with enough power, then in order to accomplish good, one must plan for how to convert them to good. Understanding their evil is necessary to get them to convert. >> >> In other words, mere blind opposition of opposing views will not work in some cases. This is one of them. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Dec 26 21:21:44 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:21:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <62144361-24B0-400B-9D1A-A4D52163F94D@gmail.com> References: <62144361-24B0-400B-9D1A-A4D52163F94D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Everybody wants their own toys. They don't want to have to borrow something from the French department, even though the French dept. can easily share the thing. So - how do we know that the cancelled observatory is really needed? Why can't they buy some time on another's scope? I can hardly imagine that this is holding up the march of science. bill w On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 3:10 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > You?re being extremely smug and self-righteous but what does it help? > You?re patting your back over being morally and intellectually better, > which you consider to be the same. That?s nice. > > But what is a SOLUTION to the issue at hand? What would you suggest? Do > you want the National Guard to patrol the mountain with tanks and give the > scientists armed escorts and have them live in fear of terrorist attacks? > Is that the solution to this problem? What do you suggest? > > SR Ballard > > On Dec 26, 2019, at 6:53 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:35 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *### I sure understand their emotions and I despise those emotions too.* >> > > Well said! > > *> There is no reason why understanding evil should lead to acceptance of >> evil, should it?* >> > > No logical reason whatsoever. If somebody's actions will obviously lead to > a net increase in the amount of ignorance in the world and without even a > hint of a compensating advantage then I have absolutely no problem with > labeling that action as evil; and it's nice to see someone else who isn't > afraid to use that word when it's appropriate as it certainly is in the > case of the destruction of the Thirty Meter Telescope. > > John K Clark > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 22:41:45 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 17:41:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <62144361-24B0-400B-9D1A-A4D52163F94D@gmail.com> References: <62144361-24B0-400B-9D1A-A4D52163F94D@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:11 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> You?re patting your back over being morally and intellectually better*, > Yes, I believe I am morally and intellectually better than the people who destroyed the Thirty Meter Telescope. But with the bar set that low it's not much of a brag, and I make no apology for believing in something that is true. > *> which you consider to be the same. * > No I don't think they are the same, but I'm better than them in both categories, *>But what is a SOLUTION to the issue at hand? * > I've already told you, there is no solution. It's over. The forces of evil and stupidity have achieved total victory, as they often do. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 23:05:32 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:05:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Everybody wants their own toys. They don't want to have to borrow > something from the French department, even though the French dept. can > easily share the thing. So - how do we know that the cancelled > observatory is really needed? Why can't they buy some time on another's > scope? I can hardly imagine that this is holding up the march of science.* Bill we're not talking about toys or school supplies, we're talking about half the universe, and a telescope that could see things 9 times dimmer that anything we can see now. There isn't a comparable next generation telescope planned for the Northern Hemisphere that's even on the drawing boards, nor is there likely to be any now that the only place such a huge telescope can be used to full advantage is off limits due to a army of marching morons. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 23:02:11 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:02:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <62144361-24B0-400B-9D1A-A4D52163F94D@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Everybody wants their own toys. They don't want to have to borrow > something from the French department, even though the French dept. can > easily share the thing. So - how do we know that the cancelled > observatory is really needed? Why can't they buy some time on another's > scope? I can hardly imagine that this is holding up the march of science.* Bill we're not talking about toys or school supplies, we're talking about half the universe, and a telescope that could see things 9 times dimmer that anything we can see now. There isn't a comparable next generation telescope planned for the Northern Hemisphere that's even on the drawing boards, nor is there likely to be any now that the only place such a huge telescope can be used to full advantage is off limits due to a army of marching morons. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 23:11:57 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 17:11:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You make excellent points. Why can't existing telescopes be upgraded? Why start from scratch in another location? Wouldn't things be much clearer with a telescope in space? Can't the one we have now be used for what you think it should be used for? I just cannot believe that there is no other location in the entire world that fits the needs for that telescope. bill w On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 5:08 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> Everybody wants their own toys. They don't want to have to borrow >> something from the French department, even though the French dept. can >> easily share the thing. So - how do we know that the cancelled >> observatory is really needed? Why can't they buy some time on another's >> scope? I can hardly imagine that this is holding up the march of science.* > > > Bill we're not talking about toys or school supplies, we're talking about > half the universe, and a telescope that could see things 9 times dimmer > that anything we can see now. There isn't a comparable next generation > telescope planned for the Northern Hemisphere that's even on the drawing > boards, nor is there likely to be any now that the only place such a huge > telescope can be used to full advantage is off limits due to a army of > marching morons. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 23:21:55 2019 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 15:21:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Looking back at Heinlein's Future History - coming true before our eyes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:04 AM wrote: snip > This is something I have often pondered. I heard of Heinlein?s weirdness, but wrote it off, ignored it, noting that weirdness is very common among celebrities and artists. I can only think of one real exception: the actor Jimmy Stewart: great actor, great person, love him. The rest of them: crazy, to a man. Weird. Can?t relate. I think most of you know that Heinlein was on the board of L5 Society for a number of years. In that capacity, I interacted with him frequently. I found him to be 100% reliable, much like the heroes in his novels. Once when there was a big kerfuffle on the board, he and Harlan Smith, director of the McDonald Observatory. were the only members who actually looked into the situation. Heinlein certainly impressed me. Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 00:42:31 2019 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 19:42:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <62144361-24B0-400B-9D1A-A4D52163F94D@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019, 6:16 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Bill we're not talking about toys or school supplies, we're talking about > half the universe, and a telescope that could see things 9 times dimmer > that anything we can see now. There isn't a comparable next generation > telescope planned for the Northern Hemisphere that's even on the drawing > boards, nor is there likely to be any now that the only place such a huge > telescope can be used to full advantage is off limits due to a army of > marching morons. > > I get the disappointment. Is there any consolation in a long-game view that sky gods are dying faster than stars go out? How many generations does it take for the current memeplex to crumble so either dollars or sense compels the landowners to recognize the shared resource of "earth" should actually be shared? Do you, the identity pattern of crankiness that is John Clark, expect to live that long? Maybe instead of officially dead this project can be irritatingly on hold? I don't know if my own longevity will be sufficient, but I'd enjoy seeing your consistent style of disturbing the peace in another hundred years (or more) :) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 01:39:22 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 20:39:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > Merely opposing evil will not get evil people to stop their ways. If > there are enough of them with enough power, then in order to accomplish > good, one must plan for how to convert them to good. Understanding their > evil is necessary to get them to convert. > > In other words, mere blind opposition of opposing views will not work in > some cases. This is one of them. > ### You are right but then I am somewhat fatalistic when it comes to this particular case and while I deplore the losses suffered by our side in the conflict, I am not sufficiently invested in astronomy to do more than just gripe and condemn our enemies on this list. I doubt you could convert Mr Momoa to the side of goodness and progress. I'd rather choose my battles and engage in activism to e.g. protect our rights to genetic testing, since this issue is much closer to my heart. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 01:52:45 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 19:52:45 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I"ll bite - what genetic testing rights are being threatened? bill w On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 7:43 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 1:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat -chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Merely opposing evil will not get evil people to stop their ways. If >> there are enough of them with enough power, then in order to accomplish >> good, one must plan for how to convert them to good. Understanding their >> evil is necessary to get them to convert. >> >> In other words, mere blind opposition of opposing views will not work in >> some cases. This is one of them. >> > > ### You are right but then I am somewhat fatalistic when it comes to this > particular case and while I deplore the losses suffered by our side in the > conflict, I am not sufficiently invested in astronomy to do more than just > gripe and condemn our enemies on this list. I doubt you could convert Mr > Momoa to the side of goodness and progress. I'd rather choose my battles > and engage in activism to e.g. protect our rights to genetic testing, > since this issue is much closer to my heart. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Dec 27 11:04:42 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 06:04:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: References: <02b801d5b9c2$7bd44300$737cc900$@rainier66.com> <000601d5b9d0$5d054420$170fcc60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 12:32 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I think it's only circular if there is only one example. bill w > It's circular if you have no examples and only have a dictionary to work with, a dictionary that is full of definitions that are made of words, words that have their own definitions that are made of yet more words also in the dictionary that are also made of words etc. Words describing words can only get you so far, you've got to start out already knowing the meanings of a few words and that can only come from real world examples. And you'd usually need more than one example, otherwise when I pointed to a ripe tomato and said "red" you'd have no way of knowing if "red" referred to a color qualia or the fact that it's good to eat. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 11:29:50 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 06:29:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is there a word for the opposite of solipsism? Message-ID: I have only one example of consciousness so a gross misunderstanding of what that word means is possible. So perhaps everybody in the world is conscious EXCEPT for me. When people ask me if I'm conscious I say "yes" and am trying to tell the truth, but we may mean two very different things by that word. What I think of as consciousness you might laugh at as being utterly trivial, what you and everybody else on the planet means by "consciousness" is something infinitely more magnificent that my mind is incapable of even glimpsing. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 12:02:51 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 07:02:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:16 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: You make excellent points. Why can't existing telescopes be upgraded? Why > start from scratch in another location? > > Wouldn't things be much clearer with a telescope in space? > The James Webb telescope is far smaller than the Thirty Meter Telescope, and as of today Webb cost 10 billion dollars, about 15 times its original cost estimate, it was supposed to be launched in 2007 and it's still sitting on the ground. Every year they say Webb will be launched next year, now they say 2021. I'll believe it when I see it. Talk of putting the Thirty Meter Telescope into space is pure fantasy, it just ain't gonna happen. > I just cannot believe that there is no other location in the entire > world that fits the needs for that telescope. > Superb observing locations are very rare on this planet, there are only 2 places of comparable quality and both are in the southern hemisphere; astronomers didn't want to abandon half the universe but now they have no choice. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 15:28:15 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:28:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The closest Supernova candidate Message-ID: Actually the closest Supernova candidate is not Betelgeuse but IK Pegasi B, it's only 154 light years away versus 650 light years for Betelgeuse, that's still probably distant enough to be safe but its getting a little dicey. IK Pegasi B is far too dim to be seen by the naked eye but it's in orbit around IK Pegasi A which can be seen because it's about twice as massive as the sun and 8 times brighter. IK Pegasi B is dim because it's a White Dwarf, a star about the size of the Earth but more massive than the sun. IK Pegasi B is composed almost entirely of Carbon and Oxygen and is very hot and very dense, but it's not hot or dense enough to fuse the Carbon and Oxygen. However IK Pegasi B is already very close to the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.44 solar masses, and because it is in such a tight orbit around its much larger companion star (less than the orbit of Mercury) IK Pegasi B is constantly gaining mass by gravitationally pulling matter off of IK Pegasi A. When it reaches 1.44 solar masses it will no longer be able to support its own weight and will collapse in on itself, the resulting compression will increase the temperature and density until, almost instantly all the Carbon and Oxygen, virtually the entire star, will undergo thermonuclear fusion, And then everything will blow sky high in a Type 1a Supernova (someday Betelgeuse will be a Type 2 Supernova). John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Dec 27 16:00:52 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 08:00:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] watt was that? Message-ID: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> Had I about 20 more IQ points, this article coulda been written by me: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/25/the-best-christmas-present-to-humanity-ever-weve-just-had-the-best-decade-in-human-history/ It pretty much reflects my own outlook on life at the end of the teens. I am ready to roar in the 20s. Are you? We need to have a party to bring in the roaring 20s. That would be cool, passers by would be so puzzled: Waaaaatt in the hellllll? Those people aren?t even talking, they are just standing around roaring?! Then it would occur to them why we were doing it, and they would be, Oh OK, cool, let?s join em. The second decade of the 21st century has been great. I predict the third will be even better. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 17:23:56 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 09:23:56 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 5:06 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 6:16 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > You make excellent points. Why can't existing telescopes be upgraded? >> Why start from scratch in another location? >> > > >> Wouldn't things be much clearer with a telescope in space? >> > > The James Webb telescope is far smaller than the Thirty Meter Telescope, > and as of today Webb cost 10 billion dollars, about 15 times its original > cost estimate, it was supposed to be launched in 2007 and it's still > sitting on the ground. Every year they say Webb will be launched next year, > now they say 2021. I'll believe it when I see it. > > Talk of putting the Thirty Meter Telescope into space is pure fantasy, it > just ain't gonna happen. > So just because a bloated NASA bureaucracy, gated by contractors with a history of sopping up government money to prevent it from going to projects that might actually succeed, has massive financial and temporal budget overruns, you believe it is not possible to succeed where those limiting factors are not present? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 17:26:09 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:26:09 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is there a word for the opposite of solipsism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think the odds of anything you said below being true is infinitely small. bill w On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 5:32 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have only one example of consciousness so a gross misunderstanding of > what that word means is possible. So perhaps everybody in the world is > conscious EXCEPT for me. When people ask me if I'm conscious I say "yes" > and am trying to tell the truth, but we may mean two very different things > by that word. What I think of as consciousness you might laugh at as being > utterly trivial, what you and everybody else on the planet means by > "consciousness" is something infinitely more magnificent that my mind is > incapable of even glimpsing. > > 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 Dec 27 17:30:05 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 12:30:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> The James Webb telescope is far smaller than the Thirty Meter Telescope, >> and as of today Webb cost 10 billion dollars, about 15 times its original >> cost estimate, it was supposed to be launched in 2007 and it's still >> sitting on the ground. Every year they say Webb will be launched next year, >> now they say 2021. I'll believe it when I see it. Talk of putting the >> Thirty Meter Telescope into space is pure fantasy, it just ain't gonna >> happen. >> > > *> So just because a bloated NASA bureaucracy, gated by contractors with a > history of sopping up government money to prevent it from going to projects > that might actually succeed, has massive financial and temporal budget > overruns, you believe it is not possible to succeed where those limiting > factors are not present?* > Yes. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 18:08:47 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:08:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:41 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:26 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> The James Webb telescope is far smaller than the Thirty Meter >>> Telescope, and as of today Webb cost 10 billion dollars, about 15 times its >>> original cost estimate, it was supposed to be launched in 2007 and it's >>> still sitting on the ground. Every year they say Webb will be launched next >>> year, now they say 2021. I'll believe it when I see it. Talk of putting >>> the Thirty Meter Telescope into space is pure fantasy, it just ain't gonna >>> happen. >>> >> >> *> So just because a bloated NASA bureaucracy, gated by contractors with >> a history of sopping up government money to prevent it from going to >> projects that might actually succeed, has massive financial and temporal >> budget overruns, you believe it is not possible to succeed where those >> limiting factors are not present?* >> > > Yes. > Experience has shown that such broad-strokes pessimism is incorrect in other fields. But I suppose you won't be swayed by facts. You have your own invisible man in the sky, who demands these things fail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 18:24:33 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:24:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is there a word for the opposite of solipsism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unlikely? Probably. All good points. But unless there is a way to falsify such, anything is OK to believe. Just like the extreme amount of diverse theories predicting what qualia are in the supporting sub camps to Representational Qualia Theory . The amount of consensus is mostly (bud not always, in my opinion) proportional to their likeliness. But until we have a neural ponytail, we can?t falsify anything. Failure to be able to create a neural ponytail would scientifically verify solipsism. On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:33 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I think the odds of anything you said below being true is infinitely > small. bill w > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 5:32 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I have only one example of consciousness so a gross misunderstanding of >> what that word means is possible. So perhaps everybody in the world is >> conscious EXCEPT for me. When people ask me if I'm conscious I say "yes" >> and am trying to tell the truth, but we may mean two very different things >> by that word. What I think of as consciousness you might laugh at as being >> utterly trivial, what you and everybody else on the planet means by >> "consciousness" is something infinitely more magnificent that my mind is >> incapable of even glimpsing. >> >> 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 atymes at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 18:45:06 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:45:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] watt was that? In-Reply-To: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> References: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The second decade of the 21st century has been great. I predict the > third will be even better. > Concurred - in net. There have been some serious downs as well, but in total outweighed by the number and quantity of the ups. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 19:09:35 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:09:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] watt was that? In-Reply-To: References: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I am reminded of Rupert Murdoch: a few years ago he was asked what was going to be the price of DVD units. He said - free. Because they want us to buy/rent movies, I suppose. Anyhow, I have this plasma,50" tv I was keeping my eye on years ago. It was $4000. I bought one when it was $600. Now I can get a TV that's smart, better picture, (incredible is a better word) for less than $500. (a TCL - what? - who?) Ain't competition great? My plasma I have tried to give away - no takers yet. Better, newer, and cheaper - that the mantra of the electronics industry it appears. When will it ever end? I dunno, just like I dunno when I will end, but I am hoping to see most of the 20s. bill w On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:47 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The second decade of the 21st century has been great. I predict the >> third will be even better. >> > > Concurred - in net. There have been some serious downs as well, but in > total outweighed by the number and quantity of the ups. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Dec 27 23:55:14 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 17:55:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is Message-ID: https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/12/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-2019-most-popular/ The cosmos itself is conscious and more, including a theory by Deepak Chopra, who can be counted on to have some strange, unproveable idea about anything. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 03:20:19 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:20:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What is the absence of matter? There are absences of matter all around us, including ones in the brain, that consciousness seems to have no problem 'traveling' across. Does consciousness exists as it goes between points, or can it be frozen in time? Is it located in points or between them, or both? Is it fundamentally relational and not the same kind of physical property that can exist in a single state, like charge for example? Qualia seem very acute but it seems like the traditional view is that brain consciousness is related to the movement of electricity, chemicals, and proteins. But it does seem like 'redness' being one evident thing should mean it can be represented by one clear state. This thought experiment (can consciousness be 'frozen'?) gives me a lot of confusion. Qualia are acute, but *comprehending* a quale requires time! What the fuck is up with that? Which leads me to ask, is there consciousness in the brain even when there is no motion? There are numerous reports of conscious experience even when what we know as "neural activity" has stopped (i.e. near death experience.) An easy solution to this is to simply accept that it is not only the electricity of the brain, but the entire molecular/atomic composition which is integrated and experiencing consciousness somehow. I think this is much more parsimonious. Why should only electrochemical signaling cause consciousness? You would certainly not be conscious if I removed your glia, or astrocytes, or CSF. Just because we understand them less shouldn't mean they are any less consciousness-associated. What about chemicals that participate in qualia in the brain and then go to a different part of the body? Or the blood that is in the brain during the experience of a certain quale? I don't understand how these can be fundamentally separated from the experience. They are absolutely necessary for the experience. Maybe they don't 'live' in the brain, but is that the criterion? The brain is fluid anyway. And all space was originally one, and all matter/energy was originally connected, so in the end I have a hard time separating my consciousness from the rest of everything (Sagan's apple pie thing which I think a lot of people don't understand or just take as some trite "wow the universe is big" science deal.) On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 6:56 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/12/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-2019-most-popular/ > > The cosmos itself is conscious and more, including a theory by Deepak > Chopra, who can be counted on to have some strange, unproveable idea about > anything. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 05:26:43 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 22:26:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Augh oh. Bill said: ?There are numerous reports of conscious experience even when what we know as "neural activity" has stopped (i.e. near death experience.)? You?re not going all hooga booga on us are you? ;) Not that, that is bad. Some of my best friends and family are like this. You are a "materialist" right? All the stuff Chopra and all the other hooga booga folk talk about like: ?Without consciousness, the universe would vanish in a puff of smoke? and ?The universe and the observer exist as a pair. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of the universe that ignores consciousness,? and on and on ad infinitum, is just them conflating their subjective knowledge of the universe with the universe. The huge gap in our science that fails to account for qualia (really just physical qualities or color) frees these religious folk to get so much traction with all this kind of, in my opinion, anti scientific and "unfalsifiable" ("unfalsifiable is their term) ?crap in the gap.? If secularists (and Spike) would just stop thinking sloppily about the epistemology of color (as in notice the obvious: that the word red isn?t physically red), instead of just ?quining? or ignoring this explanatory gap, they could once and for all close this last remaining gap full of crap by simply telling us which of all our physical descriptions are a description of redness. Bill also said: ?What about chemicals that participate in qualia in the brain and then go to a different part of the body?? "*participate *in qualia"? Why does everyone insist on using words that seperate qualia from physical reality? We should be more interested in physical redness, not just what physics "participates" with it. Yet another word to add to the continuously growing list of terms people seem to be compelled to use which separate qualia from physical reality: ? Generates ? Causes ? Associated with ? Correlates with ? Arises from ? Supervenes on ? Intervenes on ? Participate in [image: image.png] It?s as simple as the fact that the above is a pile of glutamate. We say it *IS* white, because it reflects white light. We don't say it "participates in white." But it?s actual physical quality or colorness we can be directly aware of *IS* redness. Its colorness could be redness, even when it is sitting in a pile like that. We don't doubt that red paint stops being red when it stops 'participating' in a painting, or when there is no light to reflect off of it. Just like a painter collects chemicals that reflect the right kind of light out of which to paint a painting, we need to take the right kind of chemicals that have the right colorness, and computationally bind them together to build any kind of composite qualitative experience of knowledge you want. Everything from love, to free will, and everything else that the hooga booga types like to think is more than just an artificially constructed virtual reality seeming we think of as reality. Again, there is no ?hard mind problem? it?s just a color problem. And to solve that problem all we need to do is stop being qualia blind by not conflating reality with our knowledge of reality. On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 8:49 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What is the absence of matter? There are absences of matter all around > us, including ones in the brain, that consciousness seems to have no > problem 'traveling' across. Does consciousness exists as it goes between > points, or can it be frozen in time? Is it located in points or between > them, or both? Is it fundamentally relational and not the same kind of > physical property that can exist in a single state, like charge for > example? Qualia seem very acute but it seems like the traditional view is > that brain consciousness is related to the movement of electricity, > chemicals, and proteins. But it does seem like 'redness' being one evident > thing should mean it can be represented by one clear state. > > This thought experiment (can consciousness be 'frozen'?) gives me a lot of > confusion. Qualia are acute, but *comprehending* a quale requires time! > What the fuck is up with that? > > Which leads me to ask, is there consciousness in the brain even when there > is no motion? There are numerous reports of conscious experience even when > what we know as "neural activity" has stopped (i.e. near death > experience.) An easy solution to this is to simply accept that it is not > only the electricity of the brain, but the entire molecular/atomic > composition which is integrated and experiencing consciousness somehow. I > think this is much more parsimonious. Why should only electrochemical > signaling cause consciousness? You would certainly not be conscious if I > removed your glia, or astrocytes, or CSF. Just because we understand them > less shouldn't mean they are any less consciousness-associated. > > What about chemicals that participate in qualia in the brain and then go > to a different part of the body? Or the blood that is in the brain during > the experience of a certain quale? I don't understand how these can be > fundamentally separated from the experience. They are absolutely necessary > for the experience. Maybe they don't 'live' in the brain, but is that the > criterion? The brain is fluid anyway. > > And all space was originally one, and all matter/energy was originally > connected, so in the end I have a hard time separating my consciousness > from the rest of everything (Sagan's apple pie thing which I think a lot of > people don't understand or just take as some trite "wow the universe is > big" science deal.) > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 6:56 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/12/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-2019-most-popular/ >> >> The cosmos itself is conscious and more, including a theory by Deepak >> Chopra, who can be counted on to have some strange, unproveable idea about >> anything. >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 57328 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 11:43:40 2019 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig@pobox.com) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:43:40 +1100 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 00:53, John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:54 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > * > the emotions at play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. The >> other factor is ignorance.* >> > > I agree, and recent events have made me see more clearly how strongly our > culture has moved in the anti-science/pro-ignorance direction, the tendency > even shows up on the Extropian List which you'd expect to be fiercely > pro-science/anti-ignorance, and at one time it certainly was but no more. > Since my last post on this subject there have been 3 responses and all of > them criticized me for being too logical and all of them empathised with > the ignorant anti-science mob, not one of them empathised with the > astronomers who not only could no longer do their work of finding out more > about the universe but actually feared for their lives. > Ummm, no, we're saying that if you ignore the emotions of the people who OWN THE LAND of course your project will fail. I think the telescope should be built. I think people freaking out over invisible sky beings is stupid. I am not, however, in control of that mountain. It's basic politics. Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://fav.me/dqkgpd our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 11:54:29 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:54:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Limits to Growth reviewed Message-ID: In contrast to Spike's optimistic post from the climate change denial site WUWT, the predictions made in the Limits to Growth report are rapidly becoming reality. Tuesday, December 17, 2019 This article contains a 55 minute podcast and a transcript (for readers) plus discussion in the readers comments section. Quotes: Fifty years ago, an international team of researchers was commissioned by the Club of Rome to build a computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth on a finite planet. Few reports have generated as much debate, discussion and disagreement. Though it?s hard to argue that its forecasts made back in the early 1970s have proved eerily accurate over the ensuing decades. But most of its warnings have been largely ignored by policymakers hoping (blindly?) for a rosier future. One of the original seventeen researchers involved in The Limits To Growth study, Dennis Meadows, joins us for the podcast this week. Fifty years later, what does he foresee ahead? "Decline is now inevitable. We?re without any question moving into the remainder of a century which is going to see, by the end of these decades, a much smaller population, much lower level of energy and material consumption and so forth. Whether we retain equity amongst people and avoid the more violent forms of conflict remains to be seen. But sustainable development is no longer an option". ------------------------ Unless a new miracle clean energy source is discovered and put into production quickly (e,g, nuclear fusion power, AI created tech, etc,) then the world is headed for much disruption. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 13:28:34 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 08:28:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:48 AM ddraig--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> recent events have made me see more clearly how strongly our culture has >> moved in the anti-science/pro-ignorance direction, the tendency even shows >> up on the Extropian List which you'd expect to be fiercely >> pro-science/anti-ignorance, and at one time it certainly was but no more. >> Since my last post on this subject there have been 3 responses and all of >> them criticized me for being too logical and all of them empathised with >> the ignorant anti-science mob, not one of them empathised with the >> astronomers who not only could no longer do their work of finding out more >> about the universe but actually feared for their lives. > > > *> Ummm, no, we're saying that if you ignore the emotions of the people > who OWN THE LAND of course your project will fail. * > It's amazing to me that so many people on the Extropian List feel that preventing that telescope from being built on that mountain by any means necessary is a hill they're willing to die on. I am not willing to do that. I am saying the project failed DESPITE the wishes of the owners of the land not because of them. Every single court decision has ruled that the mob of marching morons DOES *NOT* OWN THE LAND and the astronomers have every right to build that telescope. I am also saying that the law and the court decisions proved to be completely irrelevant because the rule of law does not operate on that mountain, so the mob* ILLEGALLY *blocked the only road up that mountain and has done so for years. If they had not that telescope would be generating new knowledge about the universe for the entire human race right now, but that didn't happen because the mob successfully transmitted their ignorance worshiping meme. And finally I am saying that even if a person has the right to do something (as the protestors do NOT) that would not necessarily prevent me from saying they are being evil parochial and stupid for exercising that right. A person has the right to say anything they like but I have the right to say they are being an ass for doing so. > > *It's basic politics.* > The P word implies the rule of law but there is none on that mountain. And besides you're walking on eggs, you need to be very careful when you use that dangerous word around here, for reasons I don't understand when it comes to that subject we're supposed to pretend that the elephant in the room isn't there. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 15:08:50 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:08:50 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5A1E2F4D-2781-4D7F-B1EF-887C45D2FED6@gmail.com> Talking about politics as an idea or a strategy isn?t the problem. For example, there are politics of the Boeing v. SpaceX bit. Discussing that is fine, within reason, I think. But ?big P? politics, as you put it, is boring for the same reason as the foaming at the mouth at the ?barbarian protestors?. SR Ballard > On Dec 28, 2019, at 7:28 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:48 AM ddraig--- via extropy-chat wrote: > >>> >> recent events have made me see more clearly how strongly our culture has moved in the anti-science/pro-ignorance direction, the tendency even shows up on the Extropian List which you'd expect to be fiercely pro-science/anti-ignorance, and at one time it certainly was but no more. Since my last post on this subject there have been 3 responses and all of them criticized me for being too logical and all of them empathised with the ignorant anti-science mob, not one of them empathised with the astronomers who not only could no longer do their work of finding out more about the universe but actually feared for their lives. >> >> > Ummm, no, we're saying that if you ignore the emotions of the people who OWN THE LAND of course your project will fail. > > It's amazing to me that so many people on the Extropian List feel that preventing that telescope from being built on that mountain by any means necessary is a hill they're willing to die on. I am not willing to do that. I am saying the project failed DESPITE the wishes of the owners of the land not because of them. Every single court decision has ruled that the mob of marching morons DOES NOT OWN THE LAND and the astronomers have every right to build that telescope. I am also saying that the law and the court decisions proved to be completely irrelevant because the rule of law does not operate on that mountain, so the mob ILLEGALLY blocked the only road up that mountain and has done so for years. If they had not that telescope would be generating new knowledge about the universe for the entire human race right now, but that didn't happen because the mob successfully transmitted their ignorance worshiping meme. > > And finally I am saying that even if a person has the right to do something (as the protestors do NOT) that would not necessarily prevent me from saying they are being evil parochial and stupid for exercising that right. A person has the right to say anything they like but I have the right to say they are being an ass for doing so. > >> > It's basic politics. > > The P word implies the rule of law but there is none on that mountain. And besides you're walking on eggs, you need to be very careful when you use that dangerous word around here, for reasons I don't understand when it comes to that subject we're supposed to pretend that the elephant in the room isn't there. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 15:23:02 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:23:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Restarting hearts - common. No neural activity? How do you restart a brain? bill w On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:50 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What is the absence of matter? There are absences of matter all around > us, including ones in the brain, that consciousness seems to have no > problem 'traveling' across. Does consciousness exists as it goes between > points, or can it be frozen in time? Is it located in points or between > them, or both? Is it fundamentally relational and not the same kind of > physical property that can exist in a single state, like charge for > example? Qualia seem very acute but it seems like the traditional view is > that brain consciousness is related to the movement of electricity, > chemicals, and proteins. But it does seem like 'redness' being one evident > thing should mean it can be represented by one clear state. > > This thought experiment (can consciousness be 'frozen'?) gives me a lot of > confusion. Qualia are acute, but *comprehending* a quale requires time! > What the fuck is up with that? > > Which leads me to ask, is there consciousness in the brain even when there > is no motion? There are numerous reports of conscious experience even when > what we know as "neural activity" has stopped (i.e. near death > experience.) An easy solution to this is to simply accept that it is not > only the electricity of the brain, but the entire molecular/atomic > composition which is integrated and experiencing consciousness somehow. I > think this is much more parsimonious. Why should only electrochemical > signaling cause consciousness? You would certainly not be conscious if I > removed your glia, or astrocytes, or CSF. Just because we understand them > less shouldn't mean they are any less consciousness-associated. > > What about chemicals that participate in qualia in the brain and then go > to a different part of the body? Or the blood that is in the brain during > the experience of a certain quale? I don't understand how these can be > fundamentally separated from the experience. They are absolutely necessary > for the experience. Maybe they don't 'live' in the brain, but is that the > criterion? The brain is fluid anyway. > > And all space was originally one, and all matter/energy was originally > connected, so in the end I have a hard time separating my consciousness > from the rest of everything (Sagan's apple pie thing which I think a lot of > people don't understand or just take as some trite "wow the universe is > big" science deal.) > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 6:56 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/12/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-2019-most-popular/ >> >> The cosmos itself is conscious and more, including a theory by Deepak >> Chopra, who can be counted on to have some strange, unproveable idea about >> anything. >> >> bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 16:06:34 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:06:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <5A1E2F4D-2781-4D7F-B1EF-887C45D2FED6@gmail.com> References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> <5A1E2F4D-2781-4D7F-B1EF-887C45D2FED6@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:13 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Talking about politics as an idea or a strategy isn?t the problem. For > example, there are politics of the Boeing v. SpaceX bit. Discussing that is > fine, within reason, I think. But ?big P? politics, as you put it, is > boring* > So you think talking about trivialities is OK but not anything big and important or heaven forbid, controversial. Sounds familiar, spoilt teenage children sometimes don't want to study math or science because they think it is sooooo boring, and they will demand an apology from any of their peers who dares to deviate from the party line, an apology for something that needs no apology that will not be accepted even if made. Astronaut Scott Kelly happened to say that Winston Churchill was "one of the greatest leaders of modern times" which he certainly was, but truth is no defence, Kelly was furiously attacked on Twitter because, never mind saving his country from Nazi rule, Churchill supported British colonialism in the first half of the 20th century as did virtually every other Englishman at the time. Kelly apologised for having spoken the truth which he should have known would do no good whatsoever because no matter how groveling the apology is the politically correct mob will always decree that it just was't groveling enough and not accept it. And I never called it "big P politics". John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 16:12:09 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:12:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Electrical activity commonly fades from the brain if blood supply is lost, but restoring blood supply restores activity. Sometimes experiences are reported during this time. There are only 2 possibilities for why: 1) The experiences occurred during the time when the brain was shutting down or booting back up, and time dilation made them seem longer then they were 2) The experiences occurred during the time when there was no electrical activity in the brain, and that's because consciousness is not directly ascribable to electrical activity but rather many different neural processes. Even if there is no electrical activity, there is still motion of proteins across membranes, vesicular movement, and general cellular processes releasing chemicals and whatnot. I think it makes sense that these processes might participate in consciousness, because: a) They have not been ruled out b) They are directly required for conscious experience On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:24 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Restarting hearts - common. No neural activity? How do you restart a > brain? bill w > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:50 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> What is the absence of matter? There are absences of matter all around >> us, including ones in the brain, that consciousness seems to have no >> problem 'traveling' across. Does consciousness exists as it goes between >> points, or can it be frozen in time? Is it located in points or between >> them, or both? Is it fundamentally relational and not the same kind of >> physical property that can exist in a single state, like charge for >> example? Qualia seem very acute but it seems like the traditional view is >> that brain consciousness is related to the movement of electricity, >> chemicals, and proteins. But it does seem like 'redness' being one evident >> thing should mean it can be represented by one clear state. >> >> This thought experiment (can consciousness be 'frozen'?) gives me a lot >> of confusion. Qualia are acute, but *comprehending* a quale requires >> time! What the fuck is up with that? >> >> Which leads me to ask, is there consciousness in the brain even when >> there is no motion? There are numerous reports of conscious experience >> even when what we know as "neural activity" has stopped (i.e. near death >> experience.) An easy solution to this is to simply accept that it is not >> only the electricity of the brain, but the entire molecular/atomic >> composition which is integrated and experiencing consciousness somehow. I >> think this is much more parsimonious. Why should only electrochemical >> signaling cause consciousness? You would certainly not be conscious if I >> removed your glia, or astrocytes, or CSF. Just because we understand them >> less shouldn't mean they are any less consciousness-associated. >> >> What about chemicals that participate in qualia in the brain and then go >> to a different part of the body? Or the blood that is in the brain during >> the experience of a certain quale? I don't understand how these can be >> fundamentally separated from the experience. They are absolutely necessary >> for the experience. Maybe they don't 'live' in the brain, but is that the >> criterion? The brain is fluid anyway. >> >> And all space was originally one, and all matter/energy was originally >> connected, so in the end I have a hard time separating my consciousness >> from the rest of everything (Sagan's apple pie thing which I think a lot of >> people don't understand or just take as some trite "wow the universe is >> big" science deal.) >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 6:56 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/12/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-2019-most-popular/ >>> >>> The cosmos itself is conscious and more, including a theory by Deepak >>> Chopra, who can be counted on to have some strange, unproveable idea about >>> anything. >>> >>> bill w >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Sat Dec 28 18:29:33 2019 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:29:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1FD2F5A7-25E3-473B-82C7-ADE6328E4958@alumni.virginia.edu> Regarding the question of ownership, it seems it?s leased by the University of Hawaii and owned by the state. I see the protesters don?t recognize the authority and/or process under which ownership happened. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/how-world-s-largest-solar-telescope-rose-maui-while-nearby-protests-derailed-larger ?Mauna Kea also poses a bigger management challenge for the University of Hawaii. The science reserve on the Mauna Kea summit spans nearly 5000 hectares?an area more than 650 times larger than Maui?s compact Science City. ?If someone is not happy with the management of Mauna Kea, it falls directly on the university,? Hasinger says. ?On Haleakal? we only have the small area of Science City. The rest is managed by the national park.? And although the university owns Science City, its preserve on Mauna Kea is a lease, which means it is subject to state audits.? >> On Dec 28, 2019, at 6:45 AM, ddraig--- via extropy-chat wrote: > ? > > >> On Wed, 25 Dec 2019 at 00:53, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 11:54 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >> >>> > the emotions at play are a HUGE part of anti-science sentiment. The other factor is ignorance. >> >> I agree, and recent events have made me see more clearly how strongly our culture has moved in the anti-science/pro-ignorance direction, the tendency even shows up on the Extropian List which you'd expect to be fiercely pro-science/anti-ignorance, and at one time it certainly was but no more. Since my last post on this subject there have been 3 responses and all of them criticized me for being too logical and all of them empathised with the ignorant anti-science mob, not one of them empathised with the astronomers who not only could no longer do their work of finding out more about the universe but actually feared for their lives. > > > > > Ummm, no, we're saying that if you ignore the emotions of the people who OWN THE LAND of course your project will fail. I think the telescope should be built. I think people freaking out over invisible sky beings is stupid. > > > I am not, however, in control of that mountain. It's basic politics. > > > Dwayne > -- > ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna > ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... > http://fav.me/dqkgpd > our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 18:31:24 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 12:31:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have not actively researched it, but I have been trying to follow glial cells and what roles they play in the brain. Are you suggesting that they are involved? bill w On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:27 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Electrical activity commonly fades from the brain if blood supply is lost, > but restoring blood supply restores activity. Sometimes experiences are > reported during this time. There are only 2 possibilities for why: > > 1) The experiences occurred during the time when the brain was shutting > down or booting back up, and time dilation made them seem longer then they > were > > 2) The experiences occurred during the time when there was no electrical > activity in the brain, and that's because consciousness is not directly > ascribable to electrical activity but rather many different neural > processes. Even if there is no electrical activity, there is still motion > of proteins across membranes, vesicular movement, and general cellular > processes releasing chemicals and whatnot. I think it makes sense that > these processes might participate in consciousness, because: > > a) They have not been ruled out > b) They are directly required for conscious experience > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:24 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Restarting hearts - common. No neural activity? How do you restart a >> brain? bill w >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:50 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> What is the absence of matter? There are absences of matter all around >>> us, including ones in the brain, that consciousness seems to have no >>> problem 'traveling' across. Does consciousness exists as it goes between >>> points, or can it be frozen in time? Is it located in points or between >>> them, or both? Is it fundamentally relational and not the same kind of >>> physical property that can exist in a single state, like charge for >>> example? Qualia seem very acute but it seems like the traditional view is >>> that brain consciousness is related to the movement of electricity, >>> chemicals, and proteins. But it does seem like 'redness' being one evident >>> thing should mean it can be represented by one clear state. >>> >>> This thought experiment (can consciousness be 'frozen'?) gives me a lot >>> of confusion. Qualia are acute, but *comprehending* a quale requires >>> time! What the fuck is up with that? >>> >>> Which leads me to ask, is there consciousness in the brain even when >>> there is no motion? There are numerous reports of conscious experience >>> even when what we know as "neural activity" has stopped (i.e. near death >>> experience.) An easy solution to this is to simply accept that it is not >>> only the electricity of the brain, but the entire molecular/atomic >>> composition which is integrated and experiencing consciousness somehow. I >>> think this is much more parsimonious. Why should only electrochemical >>> signaling cause consciousness? You would certainly not be conscious if I >>> removed your glia, or astrocytes, or CSF. Just because we understand them >>> less shouldn't mean they are any less consciousness-associated. >>> >>> What about chemicals that participate in qualia in the brain and then go >>> to a different part of the body? Or the blood that is in the brain during >>> the experience of a certain quale? I don't understand how these can be >>> fundamentally separated from the experience. They are absolutely necessary >>> for the experience. Maybe they don't 'live' in the brain, but is that the >>> criterion? The brain is fluid anyway. >>> >>> And all space was originally one, and all matter/energy was originally >>> connected, so in the end I have a hard time separating my consciousness >>> from the rest of everything (Sagan's apple pie thing which I think a lot of >>> people don't understand or just take as some trite "wow the universe is >>> big" science deal.) >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 6:56 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> https://dailygalaxy.com/2019/12/the-ultimate-mystery-consciousness-may-exist-in-the-absence-of-matter-2019-most-popular/ >>>> >>>> The cosmos itself is conscious and more, including a theory by Deepak >>>> Chopra, who can be counted on to have some strange, unproveable idea about >>>> anything. >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 18:32:25 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 12:32:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> <5A1E2F4D-2781-4D7F-B1EF-887C45D2FED6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <74C4E5BD-B665-41E5-AEFB-C88E1800061E@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 28, 2019, at 10:06 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:13 AM SR Ballard via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> > Talking about politics as an idea or a strategy isn?t the problem. For example, there are politics of the Boeing v. SpaceX bit. Discussing that is fine, within reason, I think. But ?big P? politics, as you put it, is boring > > So you think talking about trivialities is OK but not anything big and important or heaven forbid, controversial. Sounds familiar, spoilt teenage children sometimes don't want to study math or science Space X and Boeing going to space are trivial, glad to know where you stand. As far as 30m telescope, right now it?s dead in the water. But so was Dakota Access Pipeline, and look where we are now. There are other possible sites for this telescope for the telescope in the northern hemisphere as well, which you have also mentioned. Not all is lost. Just delayed. It?s lamentable. The telescope could probably be finished by now. But just because it isn?t being built right now doesn?t mean it never will be. Probably like the pipeline, they just have to wait for interest to die down. > And I never called it "big P politics". > The P word I don?t understand how saying ?those barbarians!!!1!1!? for months, or ?Trump!!!1!? for over a year are not trivial. We already get it and we already agree with you. You just keep getting upset because we won?t repeat you like a robot. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 18:58:24 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:58:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 13:48 William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have not actively researched it, but I have been trying to follow glial > cells and what roles they play in the brain. Are you suggesting that they > are involved? bill w > I am suggesting that there is no reason (and furthermore that it smacks of vitalism) that consciousness should be ascribed to electrochemistry and ONLY electrochemistry. From what I have seen and studied, there is no basis for this besides dogma from the 50s and earlier, and even earlier 'electrical mysticism'. There is no reason why e.g. a protein changing conformation should be barred from association with a quale. I am tired of electric magic amd mystery. The brain is far more than electricity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 19:42:19 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:42:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is no reason why e.g. a protein changing conformation should be barred from association with a quale. I am tired of electric magic amd mystery. The brain is far more than electricity. If you are right, then dreams of copying neural networks to reproduce a mind, is just that, a dream. bill w On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:00 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 13:48 William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I have not actively researched it, but I have been trying to follow glial >> cells and what roles they play in the brain. Are you suggesting that they >> are involved? bill w >> > > I am suggesting that there is no reason (and furthermore that it smacks of > vitalism) that consciousness should be ascribed to electrochemistry and > ONLY electrochemistry. From what I have seen and studied, there is no > basis for this besides dogma from the 50s and earlier, and even earlier > 'electrical mysticism'. > > There is no reason why e.g. a protein changing conformation should be > barred from association with a quale. I am tired of electric magic amd > mystery. The brain is far more than electricity. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 19:50:11 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:50:11 -0600 Subject: [ExI] back at ya, Spike, - from bill w Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 20:46:43 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 15:46:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 2:43 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > There is no reason why e.g. a protein changing conformation should be > barred from association with a quale. I am tired of electric magic amd > mystery. The brain is far more than electricity. > > If you are right, then dreams of copying neural networks to reproduce a > mind, is just that, a dream. bill w > Why is that? Why would we not be able to simulate the same processes in a computer? Surely you don't think the reason a computer should be able to emulate a mind is because they both...use electricity??? It's because of the underlying mathematics, I thought. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Dec 28 23:00:27 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 15:00:27 -0800 Subject: [ExI] back at ya, Spike, - from bill w In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00af01d5bdd2$98939bd0$c9bad370$@rainier66.com> I miss the hell outta Calvin and Hobbes. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2019 11:50 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] back at ya, Spike, - from bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 03:27:49 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 22:27:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] back at ya, Spike, - from bill w In-Reply-To: <00af01d5bdd2$98939bd0$c9bad370$@rainier66.com> References: <00af01d5bdd2$98939bd0$c9bad370$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Read Achewood instead, it's on permanent hiatus but there is a huge backlog and it's one of the greatest comics ever made in my opinion, and I love C&H too. This is the first one: http://achewood.com/index.php?date=10012001 Starts a bit slow but gets very good. Lots of good life and pop culture jokes like C&H. On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 6:01 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I miss the hell outta Calvin and Hobbes. > > > > spike > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Sent:* Saturday, December 28, 2019 11:50 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Cc:* William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] back at ya, Spike, - from bill w > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Dec 29 04:23:17 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 20:23:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Hi Brent, Molecular Materialism is actually an empirically testable theory of qualia. We have empirically determined the colors that some different species can see. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/colors-animals-see Relevant excerpt: " COMMON ANIMALS AND THE COLORS THEY CAN SEE ANIMAL THE COLORS THEY SEE RELATIVE TO HUMANS SPIDERS (jumping spiders) ULTRAVIOLET AND GREEN Different INSECTS (bees) ULTRAVIOLET, BLUE, YELLOW Different CRUSTACEANS (crayfish) BLUE AND RED Less CEPHALOPODS (octopi and squids) BLUE ONLY Less FISH MOST SEE JUST TWO COLORS Less AMPHIBIANS (frogs) MOST SEE SOME COLOR Less REPTILES (snakes*) SOME COLOR AND INFRARED Different BIRDS FIVE TO SEVEN COLORS More MAMMALS (cats) TWO COLORS BUT WEAKLY Less MAMMALS (dogs) TWO COLORS BUT WEAKLY Less MAMMALS (rabbit) BLUE AND GREEN Less MAMMALS (rats) ULTRAVIOLET, BLUE, GREEN Different MAMMALS (squirrels) BLUES AND YELLOWS Less MAMMALS (primates-apes and chimps) SAME AS HUMANS Same MAMMALS (African monkeys) SAME AS HUMANS Same MAMMALS (South American monkeys) CAN'T SEE RED WELL Less" We can use this knowledge to test the hypothesis that each distinct perceived colorness is an innate property of some molecule or another. For example, if one hypothesized that a given molecule such as glutamate had the red quale as a property, then glutamate should exist in a higher proportion in the visual cortices of the animals that can see red, e.g. crayfish, than the animals that cannot see red, e.g. squirrels. For an experiment one could then subject crayfish and squirrels to the same bright red light or the same bright green light as a control and then remove their brains to a blender and then test for relative abundances of glutamate and other suspected "molecular quales" in the resultant brain smoothies called "cell lysate" by purists. If one molecule is in greater abundance in the crayfish brains exposed to red light than in the squirrel brains or the control brains exposed to green light, then you have a good candidate for the molecular quale of redness and a much stronger case for the Molecular Materialism camp. Stuart LaForge From ben at zaiboc.net Sun Dec 29 10:50:27 2019 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:50:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3a76ae64-663d-80f3-cc4d-471aad8fe5f4@zaiboc.net> It seems to be a general rule of nature that large numbers of complex, higher-level things are built from much smaller numbers of simpler, lower-level things. Think of proteins, music, maths, and life itself. Twenty amino acids can give rise to more protein molecules than there are particles of matter in the universe. A couple of handfuls of notes and rules can produce all the music that has ever existed and ever will. You get the idea. I think it's a pretty safe bet that this principle extends to mental phenomena as well. If anyone claims that a mental phenomenon such as the awareness of a specific thing is 'fundamental', and there are many, many different instances of this kind of phenomenon (which there certainly are. Potential thoughts are even more numerous than potential proteins), they are almost certanly wrong, imo. We know of the lower-level phenomena that underlie mental processes, and the ones that underlie those: Neural spike-trains, all made of simple action potentials which are /exactly the same/, all over the brain (and which, incidentally, correspond exactly to a digital representation of data), which are in turn produced by a very small number of types of ions traversing a membrane, which.. You get the idea. Neurotransmitters often seem to get mentioned, but they are only a means of getting a spike-train from one neuron to another. They could be (and in many cases are) replaced by more direct connections between neurons, such as gap junctions. I suspect the main advantage of neurotransmitters is the scope they provide for modification of the signals, such as variable timing, attenuation or amplification, etc. These could also be achieved with gap junctions, but would involve more complex mechanisms. Neurotransmitters are, in a sense, irrelevant. They are a mechanism for a function that could be achieved by many alternative mechanisms, but they are not a principle of operation. Anyway, my point is that any idea which proposes the opposite of the general principle I'm taking about, claiming that a very large number of very diverse phenomena (such as the awareness of colours, and by extension, all other things that minds can be aware of) are 'fundamental elements' (and thus indivisible, not derived from other, simpler things), while perhaps not being impossible, is highly suspect, and faces a large burden of proof. Put another way, the concept of 'elemental red' is sheer nonsense. The concept of 'red' (or, to be more accurate, the mental cagegory of 'the colour red') has to be made up of many simpler things going on in our brains. Things which are very likely (to say the least) to vary between individual people. Ben Zaiboc From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 11:52:10 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:52:10 +0800 Subject: [ExI] watt was that? In-Reply-To: References: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: If I had the money, I would love to have a transhumanist themed "Great Gatsby" style party, no expense spared! Lol If only... On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:22 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I am reminded of Rupert Murdoch: a few years ago he was asked what was > going to be the price of DVD units. He said - free. Because they want us > to buy/rent movies, I suppose. Anyhow, I have this plasma,50" tv I was > keeping my eye on years ago. It was $4000. I bought one when it was $600. > Now I can get a TV that's smart, better picture, (incredible is a better > word) for less than $500. (a TCL - what? - who?) Ain't competition great? > > My plasma I have tried to give away - no takers yet. > > Better, newer, and cheaper - that the mantra of the electronics industry > it appears. When will it ever end? > > I dunno, just like I dunno when I will end, but I am hoping to see most of > the 20s. > > bill w > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:47 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> The second decade of the 21st century has been great. I predict the >>> third will be even better. >>> >> >> Concurred - in net. There have been some serious downs as well, but in >> total outweighed by the number and quantity of the ups. >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 11:57:38 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:57:38 +0800 Subject: [ExI] watt was that? In-Reply-To: References: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I have gotten rather fixated on the rise of tyrannical China, and I strongly suspect we will have an ugly war with them, as they attempt to conquer Taiwan, probably around 2040... My love for the future and transhumanism has been dampened, by this rivalry between America and China, in which I sadly suspect, America may not be the ultimate winner. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:52 PM John Grigg wrote: > If I had the money, I would love to have a transhumanist themed "Great > Gatsby" style party, no expense spared! Lol If only... > > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:22 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I am reminded of Rupert Murdoch: a few years ago he was asked what was >> going to be the price of DVD units. He said - free. Because they want us >> to buy/rent movies, I suppose. Anyhow, I have this plasma,50" tv I was >> keeping my eye on years ago. It was $4000. I bought one when it was $600. >> Now I can get a TV that's smart, better picture, (incredible is a better >> word) for less than $500. (a TCL - what? - who?) Ain't competition great? >> >> My plasma I have tried to give away - no takers yet. >> >> Better, newer, and cheaper - that the mantra of the electronics industry >> it appears. When will it ever end? >> >> I dunno, just like I dunno when I will end, but I am hoping to see most >> of the 20s. >> >> bill w >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:47 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> The second decade of the 21st century has been great. I predict the >>>> third will be even better. >>>> >>> >>> Concurred - in net. There have been some serious downs as well, but in >>> total outweighed by the number and quantity of the ups. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Sun Dec 29 12:05:32 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 20:05:32 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Russia is the first nation with an operational hypersonic weapon Message-ID: "Russia just revealed that its hypersonic weapon ? the Avangard ? is now operational, making it the first military in possession of a new class of nuclear weapon against which other militaries currently cannot defend ." https://futurism.com/the-byte/russia-first-nation-operational-hypersonic-weapon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 12:08:00 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 20:08:00 +0800 Subject: [ExI] Top ten science/tech stories of 2019! Message-ID: *"SO, SO MUCH. *In 2019 ? just one year! ? alone, we saw the meteoric rise of gene-editing with CRISPR and major breakthroughs like Google finally achieving quantum supremacy. And that was just two of the more than 3,000 stories Futurism published this year." "There are, of course, the stories that were read the most, and the stories that mattered to the staff of Futurism the most. But there?s a third category of stories we couldn?t end the year without looking back on: Those which you, the readers and fans of Futurism, had the most to say about. Be it by retweet, re-gram, comment, like or share, the below stories are the ten moments in Futurism?s 2019 that sparked the most conversation, the most engagement, and the most noise." https://futurism.com/futurism-top-ten-science-tech-stories-discussed-2019 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 12:10:15 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 20:10:15 +0800 Subject: [ExI] 3D printing is going to reshape retail in these 4 ways Message-ID: "Forget costly prototypes, traditional textile manufacturing, product recalls, and the like. 3D printing is about to turn the entire retail industry on its head. A precise form of additive manufacturing, 3D printing can create a product from almost any material at mass scale, generating large quantities while individually tailoring each product to consumers." https://singularityhub.com/2019/12/27/3d-printing-is-going-to-reshape-retail-in-these-4-ways/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 14:27:58 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:27:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 8:43 PM ddraig at pobox.com wrote: *> Are you stupid? * > I don't know, it could be. Stupid people generally don't know they're stupid, but if I am stupid I'm certainly not as stupid as the mob that ILLEGALLY blocked the only road up that mountain to prevent the most wonderful telescope in the world from being built. I'm not as stupid as those who feel it is their duty to stick up for that mindless mob either. *> am I wasting my time with this guy?* > Yes. So will you go away now? *> What you ARE willing to do is to cut out the next line (there were, > what, 3 of them in total?) where I said I agree with you.* > That line was about property rights and implied that landowners have the right to do whatever they want with their land including not allowing telescopes to be built there. I cut off that line because I did not wish to debate it, and I did not wish to debate it because it is IRRELEVANT. Every court decision has ruled that the mob does NOT own that land. Of course in the end the law and court decisions proved to be irrelevant too. And in no shape way or form do you agree with me. Every defender of that evil ignorant anti-science anti-enlightenment mob has the same basic mantra, "it would be nice if the telescope could be built *BUT* ..." *> So you understand that it's apolitcal problem, not a sceince problem (or > a legal problem, it seems).* > I understand it's a criminal problem, and I understand that the criminals have won. > >> If they had not that telescope would be generating new knowledge about >> the universe for the entire human race right now, but that didn't happen >> because the mob successfully transmitted their ignorance worshiping meme. >> > > *> Welcome to politics.* > That's not politics that's just crime. And I do NOT welcome the ignorance worshiping meme that infected the mob even if I grudgingly admire its skill at rapid reproduction. I don't welcome people who feel it is their duty to defend those infected with that meme eother. >>The P word implies the rule of law >> > > >*No, it does not at all. The American Revolution was illegal. * > Illegal under one set of laws and legal or even mandatory under other sets. The very first thing the American Revolutionaries did was set up their own laws and build gallows so they could hang people who violated those rules, it's the same with every revolution. But the only law the mob on that mountain follows is "if I say I own something then I own it and it doesn't matter what you or the courts or anybody else says about it". > *> I feel I am missing something here. * Led you to the truth your instinctive feelings have Padawan. > *I generally lurk on this list and don't read it that often* I think such a long tradition should be honored and continue. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 14:53:56 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:53:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:43 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Molecular Materialism is actually an empirically testable theory > of qualia.* No theory of qualia is testable. You can test for intelligence, you can test for how someone or something behaves, you can objectively test for what colors a person or animal or AI can distinguish between, but there is no way to know what subjective feelings they are having when they are doing so or even experimentally show that they have any at all. Empiricism is all about objectivity, but qualia is about subjectivity. That's one reason why I think intelligence theories are far more important than consciousness theories. Another reason is that one can make you a billionaire and one can't. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 15:40:13 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 10:40:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: References: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Well, determining what wavelengths can be seen is not the same as determining what qualia are experienced. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 16:48:52 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:48:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year Message-ID: One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ============== One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ============== One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ============== One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ================ Happy New Year all. I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about it.You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an eighth grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in a dream. PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from today. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 17:24:43 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:24:43 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was excited the last few days waiting for this email. Great way to ring in the new year! SR Ballard > On Dec 29, 2019, at 10:48 AM, John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > Happy New Year all. > > I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about it.You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an eighth grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in a dream. > > PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from today. > > 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 Sun Dec 29 17:26:30 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:26:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, you are a psi phenomenon all by yourself. bill w On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:22 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > Happy New Year all. > > I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in > Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, > after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no > training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the > good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this > very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I > predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about > it.You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an > eighth grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs > boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in > Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true > because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in > a dream. > > PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from > today. > > 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 Sun Dec 29 17:32:47 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 11:32:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] watt was that? In-Reply-To: References: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: In a few decades China could change. Look at Hong Kong. Those people don't want war - they want freedom to trade and make money. Just what would happen if two countries that were as economically entangled as we two are,have a shooting war? Over what? Taiwan? I say let that one go. Not worth American deaths. Neither is trying to kick Russians out of Ukraine. Great trade between us two is a win-win situation. Any war is a win-lose. Or lose-lose. What did France and Britain get out of all those wars of lasting significance? Nothing. Lots of dead people. Honor? Territory? Nah. Let's vote for pacifists. bill w On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:06 AM John Grigg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have gotten rather fixated on the rise of tyrannical China, and I > strongly suspect we will have an ugly war with them, as they attempt to > conquer Taiwan, probably around 2040... My love for the future and > transhumanism has been dampened, by this rivalry between America and China, > in which I sadly suspect, America may not be the ultimate winner. > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:52 PM John Grigg > wrote: > >> If I had the money, I would love to have a transhumanist themed "Great >> Gatsby" style party, no expense spared! Lol If only... >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:22 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I am reminded of Rupert Murdoch: a few years ago he was asked what was >>> going to be the price of DVD units. He said - free. Because they want us >>> to buy/rent movies, I suppose. Anyhow, I have this plasma,50" tv I was >>> keeping my eye on years ago. It was $4000. I bought one when it was $600. >>> Now I can get a TV that's smart, better picture, (incredible is a better >>> word) for less than $500. (a TCL - what? - who?) Ain't competition great? >>> >>> My plasma I have tried to give away - no takers yet. >>> >>> Better, newer, and cheaper - that the mantra of the electronics industry >>> it appears. When will it ever end? >>> >>> I dunno, just like I dunno when I will end, but I am hoping to see most >>> of the 20s. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:47 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The second decade of the 21st century has been great. I predict the >>>>> third will be even better. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Concurred - in net. There have been some serious downs as well, but in >>>> total outweighed by the number and quantity of the ups. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 18:33:35 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 13:33:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So what is psi? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 18:41:40 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:41:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, for something that you think doesn?t exist, you sure give a lot of attention and time to psi ;-) ;-) On 2019. Dec 29., Sun at 18:22, John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ============== > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. > > ================ > > Happy New Year all. > > I predict that a paper reporting positive psi results will NOT appear in > Nature or Science in the next year. This may seem an outrageous prediction, > after all psi is hardly a rare phenomena, millions of people with no > training have managed to observe it, or claim they have. And I am sure the > good people at Nature and Science would want to say something about this > very important and obvious part of our natural world if they could, but I > predict they will be unable to find anything interesting to say about > it.You might think my prediction is crazy, like saying a waitress with an > eighth grade education in Duluth Minnesota can regularly observe the Higgs > boson with no difficulty but the highly trained Physicists at CERN in > Switzerland cannot. Nevertheless I am confident my prediction is true > because my ghostly spirit guide Mohammad Duntoldme spoke to me about it in > a dream. > > PS: I am also confident I can make this very same prediction one year from > today. > > 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 Dec 29 19:14:26 2019 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:14:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] 3D printing is going to reshape retail in these 4 ways In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75b7a24a-8b6c-d307-dcea-ca9624c1e269@zaiboc.net> On 29/12/2019 14:28, John Grigg wrote: "Forget costly prototypes, traditional textile manufacturing, product recalls, and the like. 3D printing is about to turn the entire retail industry on its head. A precise form of additive manufacturing, 3D printing can create a product from almost any material at mass scale, generating large quantities while individually tailoring each product to consumers." https://singularityhub.com/2019/12/27/3d-printing-is-going-to-reshape-retail-in-these-4-ways/ So what happened to the vision of a 3D printer in every kitchen? Diamandis' article still assumes the traditional model of a supplier charging money for a product, just a different way of creating the product, yet presents it as a game-changing thing, when the game really remains the same. The game will be truly changed when 'retail' is no longer a reality, not when retail companies adopt different methods of production in order to increase their profits even more. Ben Zaiboc From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 19:46:29 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:46:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: References: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: John Said: ?No theory of qualia is testable.? All the supporters of Representational Qualia Theory are predicting that this claim will be falsified via a neural ponytail enabling is to directly experience the qualities of other?s conscious knowledge. It seems it would help if you would canonize this view so we can find out and track how many people agree, and not talk as if our view is the only view. ?Empiricism is all about objectivity, but qualia is about subjectivity.? Precisely. Once we discover which of our abstract objective descriptions are describing what we directly experience as redness ang greenness, this will connect the abstract objective to the qualitative subjective, making it all objectively sharable and very objectively predictable as to who?s subjective redness is like who?s subjective greenness. (i.e. all the relevant names, memories and association with elemental redness in one brain will be bound to greenness in the others.) Stuart LaForge pointed out some great new ways to empirically test for Molecular Materialism. Will responded to some of the other stuff Stuart was saying with: determining what wavelengths can be seen is not the same as determining what qualia are experienced. I agree with Will here. I think it is incorrect to assume that glutamate or redness is always affiliated with red light. It is more likely that whatever is most important to that particular species will be represented with glutamate/redness. We need to be able to pick the strawberries from the green leaves. Since the strawberries are most important to us, and since the ripe ones are the ones that reflect red light, that is why our brain chooses to highlight the important ripe ones with glutamate redness. For example, I believe bees can see wavelengths we can?t, which are the wavelengths most likely to be reflected by flowers containing the most nectar. It is likely that evolution used glutamate redness to represent these different raveling?s of light to highlight what is important to the bees. Bat?s use echolocation instead of light. Their echolocation can detect objects in the air. I?d predict that a bat?s brain uses the same redness/glutamate to highlight whatever echolocated data was is important to the bat. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 8:41 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Well, determining what wavelengths can be seen is not the same as > determining what qualia are experienced. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 20:30:36 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 13:30:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: <3a76ae64-663d-80f3-cc4d-471aad8fe5f4@zaiboc.net> References: <3a76ae64-663d-80f3-cc4d-471aad8fe5f4@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Hi Ben, Thanks for jumping in on this!! I was completely agreeing with everything you were saying. I get so upset at most theories of consciousness that have exactly the problem you pointed out with: ?It seems to be a general rule of nature that large numbers of complex, higher-level things are built from much smaller numbers of simpler, lower-level things.? One of many examples is ?pan-psychic? ideas that claim everything has ?proto? consciousness. What the heck is a "proto" consciousness? Does a proto-consciousness have the same resolution and color depth as our visual consciousness? But then you revealed your qualia blindness in your last paragraph by saying: ?the concept of 'elemental red' is sheer nonsense?. ?Red? is a label we give to something that reflects or emits red light. It is elemental ?redness? that we are talking about. Redness is a label for a very different set of elemental physics than ?red?. One is a color property that initiates perceptions. Colorness is the different property of the final physics that result from perception. Colorness is the qualities of the stuff we directly experience from which our conscious knowledge is composed. Ben, let me ask you this. What do you think your knowledge of a strawberry is composed of? I believe the supporters of ?Representational Qualia Theory ? are saying exactly what you are saying by defining consciousness (love, free will, intentionality?) to be ?Composite computationally bound elemental physical qualities in the brain like redness and greenness.? On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:51 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > It seems to be a general rule of nature that large numbers of complex, > higher-level things are built from much smaller numbers of simpler, > lower-level things. > > Think of proteins, music, maths, and life itself. > > Twenty amino acids can give rise to more protein molecules than there > are particles of matter in the universe. A couple of handfuls of notes > and rules can produce all the music that has ever existed and ever will. > You get the idea. > > I think it's a pretty safe bet that this principle extends to mental > phenomena as well. If anyone claims that a mental phenomenon such as the > awareness of a specific thing is 'fundamental', and there are many, many > different instances of this kind of phenomenon (which there certainly > are. Potential thoughts are even more numerous than potential proteins), > they are almost certanly wrong, imo. > > We know of the lower-level phenomena that underlie mental processes, and > the ones that underlie those: Neural spike-trains, all made of simple > action potentials which are /exactly the same/, all over the brain (and > which, incidentally, correspond exactly to a digital representation of > data), which are in turn produced by a very small number of types of > ions traversing a membrane, which.. You get the idea. > > Neurotransmitters often seem to get mentioned, but they are only a means > of getting a spike-train from one neuron to another. They could be (and > in many cases are) replaced by more direct connections between neurons, > such as gap junctions. I suspect the main advantage of neurotransmitters > is the scope they provide for modification of the signals, such as > variable timing, attenuation or amplification, etc. These could also be > achieved with gap junctions, but would involve more complex mechanisms. > Neurotransmitters are, in a sense, irrelevant. They are a mechanism for > a function that could be achieved by many alternative mechanisms, but > they are not a principle of operation. > > Anyway, my point is that any idea which proposes the opposite of the > general principle I'm taking about, claiming that a very large number of > very diverse phenomena (such as the awareness of colours, and by > extension, all other things that minds can be aware of) are 'fundamental > elements' (and thus indivisible, not derived from other, simpler > things), while perhaps not being impossible, is highly suspect, and > faces a large burden of proof. > > Put another way, the concept of 'elemental red' is sheer nonsense. The > concept of 'red' (or, to be more accurate, the mental cagegory of 'the > colour red') has to be made up of many simpler things going on in our > brains. Things which are very likely (to say the least) to vary between > individual people. > > > Ben Zaiboc > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 21:05:19 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 08:05:19 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: <3a76ae64-663d-80f3-cc4d-471aad8fe5f4@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 07:32, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Ben, > > > > Thanks for jumping in on this!! > > > > I was completely agreeing with everything you were saying. I get so upset > at most theories of consciousness that have exactly the problem you pointed > out with: > > > > ?It seems to be a general rule of nature that large numbers of complex, > higher-level things are built from much smaller numbers of simpler, > lower-level things.? > > > One of many examples is ?pan-psychic? ideas that claim everything has > ?proto? consciousness. What the heck is a "proto" consciousness? Does a > proto-consciousness have the same resolution and color depth as our > visual consciousness? > > > But then you revealed your qualia blindness in your last paragraph by > saying: > > > ?the concept of 'elemental red' is sheer nonsense?. > > > ?Red? is a label we give to something that reflects or emits red light. > It is elemental ?redness? that we are talking about. Redness is a label > for a very different set of elemental physics than ?red?. One is a color > property that initiates perceptions. Colorness is the different property > of the final physics that result from perception. Colorness is the > qualities of the stuff we directly experience from which our conscious > knowledge is composed. > > > Ben, let me ask you this. What do you think your knowledge of a > strawberry is composed of? > > > I believe the supporters of ?Representational Qualia Theory > ? are saying > exactly what you are saying by defining consciousness (love, free will, > intentionality?) to be ?Composite computationally bound elemental > physical qualities in the brain like redness and greenness.? > You have said that it is in theory possible to know what another person?s qualia are like. Could you use the same method to decide if simple components or simple systems have qualia? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 21:58:48 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:58:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: <3a76ae64-663d-80f3-cc4d-471aad8fe5f4@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: As I?ve tried to communicate, there are two necessary parts to qualia functionality. First is the actual physical quality. There must also be some way for qualia to be computationally bound into composite qualitative experiences like colored visual knowledge, love, free will, and consciousness itself. All the harmonic theories of consciousness, including the standing waves in Lehar?s Harmonic Resonance in the Brain are all good candidates of how this binding can be accomplished. This kind of wave computation likely being far more capable than the simplistic discreet logic in CPUs of today. My prediction is that once we discover what qualia are, and how they are computationally bound, a clear answer to these types of questions will fall out. Glutamate: [image: image.png] I think that if it is glutamate that has a redness quality, this pile of glutamate, even though its color is white, since it reflects light, its colorness property will still be redness as it sits there in a pile on the table. After all, the strawberry is still ?red?, even if there is no light present. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:08 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 07:32, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Ben, >> >> >> >> Thanks for jumping in on this!! >> >> >> >> I was completely agreeing with everything you were saying. I get so >> upset at most theories of consciousness that have exactly the problem you >> pointed out with: >> >> >> >> ?It seems to be a general rule of nature that large numbers of complex, >> higher-level things are built from much smaller numbers of simpler, >> lower-level things.? >> >> >> One of many examples is ?pan-psychic? ideas that claim everything has >> ?proto? consciousness. What the heck is a "proto" consciousness? Does a >> proto-consciousness have the same resolution and color depth as our >> visual consciousness? >> >> >> But then you revealed your qualia blindness in your last paragraph by >> saying: >> >> >> ?the concept of 'elemental red' is sheer nonsense?. >> >> >> ?Red? is a label we give to something that reflects or emits red light. >> It is elemental ?redness? that we are talking about. Redness is a label >> for a very different set of elemental physics than ?red?. One is a color >> property that initiates perceptions. Colorness is the different property >> of the final physics that result from perception. Colorness is the >> qualities of the stuff we directly experience from which our conscious >> knowledge is composed. >> >> >> Ben, let me ask you this. What do you think your knowledge of a >> strawberry is composed of? >> >> >> I believe the supporters of ?Representational Qualia Theory >> ? are saying >> exactly what you are saying by defining consciousness (love, free will, >> intentionality?) to be ?Composite computationally bound elemental >> physical qualities in the brain like redness and greenness.? >> > > You have said that it is in theory possible to know what another person?s > qualia are like. Could you use the same method to decide if simple > components or simple systems have qualia? > >> -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 57636 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 22:55:25 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:55:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't understand what psi means besides some kind of phenomenon not described by science, in which case they will of course never be published in Nature, because Nature is for phenomena that have been scientifically verified. However, there have been plenty of things thought to be magic over the years that were in time assessed to be real and scientifically testable. So no, there won't ever be non-science published in nature. But some kind of unknown communication between human brains through electromagnetic fields? Or some weird quantum brain shit? Perhaps something like that could be possible, I don't know, I'm not the right person to ask. I don't think John can even explain what he is saying won't be published in nature. It seems like a very nebulous statement. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 22:59:22 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:59:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Russia is the first nation with an operational hypersonic weapon In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just a bit of hype. This is merely the latest iteration/generation of ICBMs, which are hypersonic weapons that the US and Russia (among others) have had for a while. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:07 AM John Grigg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > "Russia just revealed that its hypersonic weapon ? the Avangard ? is now > operational, making it the first military in possession of a new class of > nuclear weapon against which other militaries currently cannot defend > ." > > > > > https://futurism.com/the-byte/russia-first-nation-operational-hypersonic-weapon > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 00:11:33 2019 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig@pobox.com) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:11:33 +1100 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hmmm, so he sent a reply to me as well as to the list. I replied to the personal mail, I'll just copy what I wrote in here. Slightly less polite than if I'd been writing to the list, but there you go. On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 at 01:16, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 8:43 PM ddraig at pobox.com wrote: > > *> Are you stupid? * >> > > I don't know, it could be. Stupid people generally don't know they're > stupid, but if I am stupid I'm certainly not as stupid as the mob that > ILLEGALLY blocked the only road up that mountain to prevent the most > wonderful telescope in the world from being built. I'm not as stupid as > those who feel it is their duty to stick up for that mindless mob either. > None of us are sticking up for the mob, we're saying that ignoring the wishes of the people present is foolish. None of us would be on the Extropians list if we did not support the building of the telescope. the problem is that you seem completely unable to grasp the fact that there is more to building the telescope than logic, and are wilfully ignoring what people in the thread are saying. > > *> am I wasting my time with this guy?* >> > > Yes. So will you go away now? > Stop writing to me, dickhead, and I will. > *> What you ARE willing to do is to cut out the next line (there were, >> what, 3 of them in total?) where I said I agree with you.* >> > > That line was about property rights and implied that landowners have the > right to do whatever they want with their land including not allowing > telescopes to be built there. > Which they do. Although it turns out that the mob does not own the land, which makes it even more stupid. Unfortunately, the mob has sway locally, and here we are. > I cut off that line because I did not wish to debate it, and I did not > wish to debate it because it is IRRELEVANT. > Really? So the telescope is going to be built? > Every court decision has ruled that the mob does NOT own that land. Of > course in the end the law and court decisions proved to be irrelevant too. > Because law arises from politics, and not vice-versa. > > And in no shape way or form do you agree with me. Every defender of that > evil ignorant anti-science anti-enlightenment mob has the same basic > mantra, "it would be nice if the telescope could be built *BUT* ..." > NONE OF US ARE AGREEING WITH THE MOB - we are attempting to *understand* the mob, something you seem incapable of doing. Much as you seem incapable of understanding anyone writing to you in the thread. I've repeatedly stated that I don't agree with the mob and the telescope should have been built. I understand why people on the list call you a troll. you are a troll. > *> So you understand that it's a politcal problem, not a science problem >> (or a legal problem, it seems).* >> > > I understand it's a criminal problem, and I understand that the criminals > have won. > > >> >> If they had not that telescope would be generating new knowledge >>> about the universe for the entire human race right now, but that didn't >>> happen because the mob successfully transmitted their ignorance worshiping >>> meme. >>> >> >> *> Welcome to politics.* >> > > That's not politics that's just crime. > It's all much the same. > And I do NOT welcome the ignorance worshiping meme that infected the mob > even if I grudgingly admire its skill at rapid reproduction. I don't > welcome people who feel it is their duty to defend those infected with that > meme eother. > We're not defending it. You are stupid. > > >>The P word implies the rule of law >>> >> >> >*No, it does not at all. The American Revolution was illegal. * >> > > Illegal under one set of laws and legal or even mandatory under other > sets. > Which sets? Now you are going to spout some freedom rubbish when it was really about a small group of middle-class people not wanting to pay taxes. > The very first thing the American Revolutionaries did was set up their own > laws and build gallows so they could hang people who violated those rules, > it's the same with every revolution. But the only law the mob on that > mountain follows is "if I say I own something then I own it and it doesn't > matter what you or the courts or anybody else says about it". > Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately the mob had the numbers and so the telescope was cancelled. Again - I'm fairly sure everyone on the list feels this was a bad idea, but unlike you, we are making an attempt to get our head around why it happened, instead of just going "oh no Luddites bad, I refuse to think beyond that" - what is needed is people with more of a clue about politics than you to counter-organise. > > *I generally lurk on this list and don't read it that often* > > > I think such a long tradition should be honored and continue. > >> Perhaps I should just work on killfiling the obviously stupid people on the list Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://fav.me/dqkgpd our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 00:16:47 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:16:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Will, You asked: ?*Present...where?*? *Thank you for asking!* We?re creating a video to help explain all this and we just completed a crude rendering of the section that answers just this question here . There is no narration yet, so I?ll try to walk you through it. This will pause in the ?Flashing Pixel? section in a loop with a single flashing red/green pixel. This flashing pixel basically proves there must be something physical in our brain, which can physically change for each pixel of conscious knowledge we are aware of. (The ?inverted perception? section proves redness is not related to red, and in fact may be simply inverted anywhere along the chain of perception.). You?ll need to press the continue button to get out of the loop. The simplest theory is that each of the cortical columns in the visual cortex is representing a pixel of knowledge in our visual space, and so far, all evidence seems to support this theory. Steven Lehar recommends thinking of it as an actual diorama of 3D knowledge laid out in the visual cortex composed of voxels (3D pixels) spread out in the visual cortex. In the ?scrunched cortex? section, we split things into 2 spaces. The one on the left represents the virtual reality represented, or how things seem to us. The one on the right (hypothetically) represents the actual layout of the neurons representing each of these pixels of knowledge, physically laid out in the visual cortex. There is much higher resolution in the center field of vision, so this requires things to be scrunched up in some way to make room for additional pixel neurons in the center of our field of vision. Of course, this scrunching is consistent with the folds in the cortex. [image: image.png] As you can see in the above model of the primary visual cortex, there is of course the ?Longitudinal fissure? separating the two halves of the diorama which are physically split between the two hemispheres of the brain. There is also the ?Transverse occipital sulcus? splitting the visual cortex in half again from top to bottom (looks like a frown), splitting the diorama into 4 sections. This cross of valleys centered on our field of vision makes room for the additional pixels at the center of vision. You can see the seeds of the strawberry, as they move around these cortical column pixels, into and out of these sulci as they increase and decrease in resolution. Does that answer your question? ;) On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:31 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> Hi Will, >> >> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:41 PM Will Steinberg >> wrote: >> >>> Well, >>> >>> 1) I'm Will not Bill ;) >>> >> >> Sorry, I guess I confused you with William Flynn Wallace aka (Bill K). >> Thanks for clearing this up. >> > > You did confuse me with BillK, but he is not, to my knowledge, William > Flynn Wallace! We have many competing Wills here and further competing > wills beyond we eponymous ones. > > >> Once someone experiences redness, when there is no glutamate present, >> glutamate = redness theory falsified. >> > > Present...where? There is definitely glutamate present in the brain at > all times and during all qualia. To do what you are doing, you seem to > need to find the *location* of the qualia, which runs into precisely the > same issue. How will you possibly determine what the bounds of 'present' > are? > > > >> 3) The universe clearly cannot exist without consciousness. There is no >>> universe. All we know was gathered by consciousness. Observation >>> directly affects reality. A theory of the universe obviously includes >>> consciousness because it is far too big a deal to be extraneous. Why do >>> people try to find the underlying geometry of the fundamental forces, but >>> claim consciousness is one of John's "brute facts"? Gravity may be a brute >>> fact, but also one that is able to be studied. >>> >> >> Then, does a person not exist when they are asleep and unconscious? Are >> you saying that even if a huge asteroid completely destroyed all life on >> this earth this solar system could no longer exist (possibly to try again) >> since it was no longer conscious? >> > > No. In my opinion, our consciousness is merely an extension of some > original flagellum from the beginning of the universe, when everything was > integrated a la Tononi's IIT. Also, in any case, I think the solar system > is a sufficiently integrated system to contain consciousness (c.f. orbital > harmonics) and furthermore I think atoms are sufficiently integrated > systems to contain consciousness. I do not think that atoms are > self-conscious because they don't appear to contain sufficient machinery to > map themselves, unlike the human brain, though I could be wrong and atoms > could be little brains, but I don't think so. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 98905 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 00:36:49 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:36:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: william flynn wallace (me) is bill w, not bill k On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:22 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Will, > > > > You asked: ?*Present...where?*? > > > > *Thank you for asking!* We?re creating a video to help explain all this > and we just completed a crude rendering of the section that answers just > this question here . > > > > There is no narration yet, so I?ll try to walk you through it. > > > > This will pause in the ?Flashing Pixel? section in a loop with a single > flashing red/green pixel. > > > > This flashing pixel basically proves there must be something physical in > our brain, which can physically change for each pixel of conscious > knowledge we are aware of. (The ?inverted perception? section proves > redness is not related to red, and in fact may be simply inverted anywhere > along the chain of perception.). > > > > You?ll need to press the continue button to get out of the loop. > > > > The simplest theory is that each of the cortical columns in the visual > cortex is representing a pixel of knowledge in our visual space, and so > far, all evidence seems to support this theory. Steven Lehar recommends > thinking of it as an actual diorama of 3D knowledge laid out in the visual > cortex composed of voxels (3D pixels) spread out in the visual cortex. > > > > In the ?scrunched cortex? section, we split things into 2 spaces. The one > on the left represents the virtual reality represented, or how things seem > to us. The one on the right (hypothetically) represents the actual layout > of the neurons representing each of these pixels of knowledge, physically > laid out in the visual cortex. There is much higher resolution in the > center field of vision, so this requires things to be scrunched up in some > way to make room for additional pixel neurons in the center of our field of > vision. Of course, this scrunching is consistent with the folds in the > cortex. > > > > > > [image: image.png] > > > > As you can see in the above model of the primary visual cortex, there is > of course the ?Longitudinal fissure? separating the two halves of the > diorama which are physically split between the two hemispheres of the brain. > There is also the ?Transverse occipital sulcus? splitting the visual > cortex in half again from top to bottom (looks like a frown), splitting the > diorama into 4 sections. This cross of valleys centered on our field of > vision makes room for the additional pixels at the center of vision. > > > > You can see the seeds of the strawberry, as they move around these > cortical column pixels, into and out of these sulci as they increase and > decrease in resolution. > > > > Does that answer your question? ;) > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Will Steinberg > wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:31 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Will, >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:41 PM Will Steinberg < >>> steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, >>>> >>>> 1) I'm Will not Bill ;) >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, I guess I confused you with William Flynn Wallace aka (Bill K). >>> Thanks for clearing this up. >>> >> >> You did confuse me with BillK, but he is not, to my knowledge, William >> Flynn Wallace! We have many competing Wills here and further competing >> wills beyond we eponymous ones. >> >> >>> Once someone experiences redness, when there is no glutamate present, >>> glutamate = redness theory falsified. >>> >> >> Present...where? There is definitely glutamate present in the brain at >> all times and during all qualia. To do what you are doing, you seem to >> need to find the *location* of the qualia, which runs into precisely the >> same issue. How will you possibly determine what the bounds of 'present' >> are? >> >> >> >>> 3) The universe clearly cannot exist without consciousness. There is no >>>> universe. All we know was gathered by consciousness. Observation >>>> directly affects reality. A theory of the universe obviously includes >>>> consciousness because it is far too big a deal to be extraneous. Why do >>>> people try to find the underlying geometry of the fundamental forces, but >>>> claim consciousness is one of John's "brute facts"? Gravity may be a brute >>>> fact, but also one that is able to be studied. >>>> >>> >>> Then, does a person not exist when they are asleep and unconscious? Are >>> you saying that even if a huge asteroid completely destroyed all life on >>> this earth this solar system could no longer exist (possibly to try again) >>> since it was no longer conscious? >>> >> >> No. In my opinion, our consciousness is merely an extension of some >> original flagellum from the beginning of the universe, when everything was >> integrated a la Tononi's IIT. Also, in any case, I think the solar system >> is a sufficiently integrated system to contain consciousness (c.f. orbital >> harmonics) and furthermore I think atoms are sufficiently integrated >> systems to contain consciousness. I do not think that atoms are >> self-conscious because they don't appear to contain sufficient machinery to >> map themselves, unlike the human brain, though I could be wrong and atoms >> could be little brains, but I don't think so. >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 98905 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 01:19:01 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:19:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] you asked for it -here it is In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh OK. Sorry about all that. I guess all I can keep from conflating is red redness. But I'll work on my Will And Will Ws, also. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:38 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > william flynn wallace (me) is bill w, not bill k > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:22 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi Will, >> >> >> >> You asked: ?*Present...where?*? >> >> >> >> *Thank you for asking!* We?re creating a video to help explain all this >> and we just completed a crude rendering of the section that answers just >> this question here . >> >> >> >> There is no narration yet, so I?ll try to walk you through it. >> >> >> >> This will pause in the ?Flashing Pixel? section in a loop with a single >> flashing red/green pixel. >> >> >> >> This flashing pixel basically proves there must be something physical in >> our brain, which can physically change for each pixel of conscious >> knowledge we are aware of. (The ?inverted perception? section proves >> redness is not related to red, and in fact may be simply inverted anywhere >> along the chain of perception.). >> >> >> >> You?ll need to press the continue button to get out of the loop. >> >> >> >> The simplest theory is that each of the cortical columns in the visual >> cortex is representing a pixel of knowledge in our visual space, and so >> far, all evidence seems to support this theory. Steven Lehar recommends >> thinking of it as an actual diorama of 3D knowledge laid out in the visual >> cortex composed of voxels (3D pixels) spread out in the visual cortex. >> >> >> >> In the ?scrunched cortex? section, we split things into 2 spaces. The >> one on the left represents the virtual reality represented, or how things >> seem to us. The one on the right (hypothetically) represents the actual >> layout of the neurons representing each of these pixels of knowledge, >> physically laid out in the visual cortex. There is much higher resolution >> in the center field of vision, so this requires things to be scrunched up >> in some way to make room for additional pixel neurons in the center of our >> field of vision. Of course, this scrunching is consistent with the folds >> in the cortex. >> >> >> >> >> >> [image: image.png] >> >> >> >> As you can see in the above model of the primary visual cortex, there is >> of course the ?Longitudinal fissure? separating the two halves of the >> diorama which are physically split between the two hemispheres of the brain. >> There is also the ?Transverse occipital sulcus? splitting the visual >> cortex in half again from top to bottom (looks like a frown), splitting the >> diorama into 4 sections. This cross of valleys centered on our field of >> vision makes room for the additional pixels at the center of vision. >> >> >> >> You can see the seeds of the strawberry, as they move around these >> cortical column pixels, into and out of these sulci as they increase and >> decrease in resolution. >> >> >> >> Does that answer your question? ;) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:50 PM Will Steinberg >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:31 PM Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Will, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:41 PM Will Steinberg < >>>> steinberg.will at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, >>>>> >>>>> 1) I'm Will not Bill ;) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, I guess I confused you with William Flynn Wallace aka (Bill >>>> K). Thanks for clearing this up. >>>> >>> >>> You did confuse me with BillK, but he is not, to my knowledge, William >>> Flynn Wallace! We have many competing Wills here and further competing >>> wills beyond we eponymous ones. >>> >>> >>>> Once someone experiences redness, when there is no glutamate present, >>>> glutamate = redness theory falsified. >>>> >>> >>> Present...where? There is definitely glutamate present in the brain at >>> all times and during all qualia. To do what you are doing, you seem to >>> need to find the *location* of the qualia, which runs into precisely the >>> same issue. How will you possibly determine what the bounds of 'present' >>> are? >>> >>> >>> >>>> 3) The universe clearly cannot exist without consciousness. There is >>>>> no universe. All we know was gathered by consciousness. Observation >>>>> directly affects reality. A theory of the universe obviously includes >>>>> consciousness because it is far too big a deal to be extraneous. Why do >>>>> people try to find the underlying geometry of the fundamental forces, but >>>>> claim consciousness is one of John's "brute facts"? Gravity may be a brute >>>>> fact, but also one that is able to be studied. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Then, does a person not exist when they are asleep and unconscious? >>>> Are you saying that even if a huge asteroid completely destroyed all life >>>> on this earth this solar system could no longer exist (possibly to try >>>> again) since it was no longer conscious? >>>> >>> >>> No. In my opinion, our consciousness is merely an extension of some >>> original flagellum from the beginning of the universe, when everything was >>> integrated a la Tononi's IIT. Also, in any case, I think the solar system >>> is a sufficiently integrated system to contain consciousness (c.f. orbital >>> harmonics) and furthermore I think atoms are sufficiently integrated >>> systems to contain consciousness. I do not think that atoms are >>> self-conscious because they don't appear to contain sufficient machinery to >>> map themselves, unlike the human brain, though I could be wrong and atoms >>> could be little brains, but I don't think so. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 98905 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 01:52:25 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:52:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: References: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: It?s the metaphysical stuff that is ?the whole other rathole?. We know there are elemental chemical elements out of which everything is composed. But we don?t know why there is chemical elements. But you don?t need metaphysics to do phenomenal engineering and know how glorious it is going to be (higher colorness resolution, discovering more than 3 primary colornesses for starters) to be uploaded. What is that 4th primary color tetrachromats can experience? And I'm so looking forward to demonstrating what color blind people and dogs are missing. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:46 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > That's a whole other rabbithole though! Why is red the "important" > color? That seems to be getting into some serious value judgment. > > I actually agree with you by the way. I think that, for example, animals > who can see wider spectrums of light still probably see something like a > similar spectrum, just more stretched out. > > I'm more concerned with the metaphysical origin of those experiences > though. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 02:03:30 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:03:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: References: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Will, "I actually agree with you by the way." Thanks you so much for saying that! The majority of people just go away when their theory has been definitively falsified with simple clear arguments, them realizing they aren't the experts they once thought, and then they lose interest in the topic altogether. Would you mind helping to amplify the wisdom of the crowd and join "Representational Qualia Theory." (like signing a petition) or one of it's sub camps, to help convince the so called "peer reviewers", many of whom are still rejecting this kind of stuff, thinking it is all just too simple and not worth the time to figure it out? Brent On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:46 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > That's a whole other rabbithole though! Why is red the "important" > color? That seems to be getting into some serious value judgment. > > I actually agree with you by the way. I think that, for example, animals > who can see wider spectrums of light still probably see something like a > similar spectrum, just more stretched out. > > I'm more concerned with the metaphysical origin of those experiences > though. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 02:07:48 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 19:07:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: References: <20191228202317.Horde.qNHYj_g-DuIZ8HzbPvtMRD4@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: And it seems like the establishment is doing everything they can to suppress any idea that their lives have been fruitlessly wasted over ther "peer reviewed" diarrhea (instead of building and tracking consensus), misdirecting us into so believing there are so called "hard" problems. On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:03 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Will, > > "I actually agree with you by the way." > > Thanks you so much for saying that! The majority of people just go away > when their theory has been definitively falsified with simple clear > arguments, them realizing they aren't the experts they once thought, and > then they lose interest in the topic altogether. > > Would you mind helping to amplify the wisdom of the crowd and join > "Representational Qualia Theory." (like signing a petition) or one of it's > sub camps, to help convince the so called "peer reviewers", many of whom > are still rejecting this kind of stuff, thinking it is all just too simple > and not worth the time to figure it out? > > Brent > > > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 4:46 PM Will Steinberg > wrote: > >> That's a whole other rabbithole though! Why is red the "important" >> color? That seems to be getting into some serious value judgment. >> >> I actually agree with you by the way. I think that, for example, animals >> who can see wider spectrums of light still probably see something like a >> similar spectrum, just more stretched out. >> >> I'm more concerned with the metaphysical origin of those experiences >> though. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Dec 30 09:36:28 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 01:36:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism Message-ID: <20191230013628.Horde.AiaK7dI6nc9qvB9uPMDqXe7@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Brent Allsop: > Message: 10 > Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:46:29 -0700 > From: Brent Allsop > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Molecular Materialism > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > John Said: > > ?No theory of qualia is testable.? That is only true if you define quales to be undetectable. Molecular materialism contends that qualia are actual physical properties of molecules. As such, the theory is testable. For example, if glutamate were the redness quale, then glutamate levels in the brain should correlate with exposure to the color red. I don't think that qualia are literal molecules, so I would expect negative results, but that does not change the fact that the assertion of molecular materialism itself is experimentally testable, and therefore sorely in need of testing. Unless and until such an experiment is performed, these endless debates about qualia are all just hand-waving contests, and largely unproductive. > > Stuart LaForge pointed out some great new ways to empirically test for > Molecular Materialism. > > > Will responded to some of the other stuff Stuart was saying with: > > > determining what wavelengths can be seen is not the same as determining > what qualia are experienced. > > > I agree with Will here. I think it is incorrect to assume that glutamate > or redness is always affiliated with red light. It is more likely that > whatever is most important to that particular species will be represented > with glutamate/redness. We need to be able to pick the strawberries from > the green leaves. Since the strawberries are most important to us, and > since the ripe ones are the ones that reflect red light, that is why our > brain chooses to highlight the important ripe ones with glutamate redness. > For example, I believe bees can see wavelengths we can?t, which are the > wavelengths most likely to be reflected by flowers containing the most > nectar. It is likely that evolution used glutamate redness to represent > these different raveling?s of light to highlight what is important to the > bees. Don't back-pedal on me here, Brent. If "redness" is not correlated with red light, then "redness" is a misnomer. If glutamate is associated with red strawberries in humans and the ultraviolet signature of flowers burgeoning with nectar in honeybees, then the glutamate molecule cannot be said to have the redness quale as a property. Instead, the best one could say is that glutamate is a component of some systems that have the redness quale as a property in the context of red light and yet others that have the "yummy flower" quale as property in the context of ultraviolet light. That would mean that qualia are mental constructs instead of physical properties. You would then be forced to admit you have an abstract soul constructed of math and numbers, poor thing. But, take heart for so do the honeybees, and you have it so much better than they do. > Bat?s use echolocation instead of light. Their echolocation can detect > objects in the air. I?d predict that a bat?s brain uses the same > redness/glutamate to highlight whatever echolocated data was is important > to the bat. Yes. Now you get it, glutamate is a symbol whose meaning is purely subjective. Congratulations, you are finally qualia blind. :-) Stuart LaForge From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 15:24:07 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:24:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:09 PM ddraig at pobox.com wrote: > > *None of us are sticking up for the mob,* > Bullshit. You're crying about past injustices, most centuries old, and somehow think that wailing will magically help get the telescope built. It won't. > we're saying that ignoring the wishes of the people present is foolish. > If the wishes of the people of Hawaii were followed that magnificent telescope would have been completed several years ago and be increasing our storehouse of knowledge of half the universe right now because 77% supported building it and only 15% opposed it. I admit that if you only count native Hawaiians the approval rate was lower, among them* *only** 72% wanted the telescope to be built. Poll shows strong public support for Thirty Meter Telescope But just as in the electoral college sometimes the majority or even the plurality don't get their way. And although I'm sure they wish they could there was no way the astronomers could ignore the wishes of the minority of Hawaiians in that mindless mob marching up that mountain with blood in their eye. And in the end all the mobs wishes came true and everybody lived happily ever after, except for the scientists, and the majority of residents in the state of Hawaii, and all rational people everywhere. > > *None of us would be on the Extropians list if we did not support the > building of the telescope.* > You'd think so wouldn't you, but funny things happen on this list. I once thought nobody on this list would support a candidate who opposes libertarian ideas like free trade or doing whatever you want with your own body or was in favor of banning anti-libertarian things like end to end encryption, but it turned out I was entirely wrong. >> That line was about property rights and implied that landowners have the >> right to do whatever they want with their land including not allowing >> telescopes to be built there. > > > > *> Which they do. Although it turns out that the mob does not own the > land, which makes it even more stupid. * Yes, stupid indeed. The question of who has the legal right to build on that land turned out to be completely irrelevant because a mob of idiots made sure that the rule of law can not prevail on that mountain. And because the law is irrelevant I did not wish to debate the finer points about what the law has to say about land ownership. >* Unfortunately, the mob has sway locally, * Has sway locally... what a pleasant lovely sounding way to say that the rule of law has broken down and the dark anti-enlightenment forces have won. > >> I cut off that line because I did not wish to debate it, and I did not >> wish to debate it because it is IRRELEVANT. >> > > *> Really?* > Yes really. *> So the telescope is going to be built?* > No. > >> And in no shape way or form do you agree with me. Every defender of >> that evil ignorant anti-science anti-enlightenment mob has the same basic >> mantra, "it would be nice if the telescope could be built *BUT* ..." >> > > > NONE OF US ARE AGREEING WITH THE MOB- we are attempting to *understand* > the mob, > I know. And if you are successful at the end of your long deliberations you'll be able to understand why the mob is ignorant evil and stupid. But after that you're right back to square one where you started because the mob will be just as ignorant evil and stupid as they were before you started to think about them. You seem to think it's the astronomers fault for not casting some sort of magical spell that would have pacified the protestors, but they were offered all sorts of compromises but the mob, sensing total victory, saw no reason to compromise so they rejected them all. I don't know what more the astronomers could have done without resorting to animal tranquilizers. > > *> I understand why people on the list call you a troll. you are a troll.* > Then Mr.Newbie I am the internet's longest living troll because I've been on this list for close to a quarter of a century. Do you really think I'd write a post about things I didn't believe in just to get the goat of a silly pissant like you? > >>That's not politics that's just crime. >> > > *> It's all much the same.* > People like to say stuff like that because they think it makes them seem street smart, worldly-wise, but I think it just makes them look dumb. What you say in the above is not a skeptical view it is a cynical view and the two things are opposites. A cynic believes in nothing he hears, and that is closely related to a very naive person who believes everything he hears because neither view requires any brain power whatsoever. But a skeptic believes some things he hears but not others, and for that you need a brain. >>>*No, it does not at all. The American Revolution was illegal. * >>> >> >> >>Illegal under one set of laws and legal or even mandatory under other >> sets. >> > > > Which sets? > I'm not sure I know what you mean by that question, I presume you want an example, well the obvious one that I would have thought you could find on your own would be the set of rules that existed in America in 1775 versus the set in 1776. Another example would be England in the16'th and 17'th century where things kept switching back and forth, for a while Catholicism was mandatory and Protestantism was illegal and then a few years later Protestantism was mandatory and Catholicism was illegal. > *> Now you are going to spout some freedom rubbish when it was really > about a small group of middle-class people not wanting to pay taxes.* > I think you're confusing me with a Trump suporter; I know you're new but if you ask around you'll find that I'm not exactly the world's biggest fan of that man. *> Power comes from the barrel of a gun. * > So why did you complain that I didn't want to debate the finer points of property rights if the only thing that matters is who has the bigger gun? > > *Unfortunately the mob had the numbers and so the telescope was > cancelled.* > The mob did NOT have the numbers, but they did have the bigger gun, and if you've got that and the rule of law breaks down then you win. > *Again - I'm fairly sure everyone on the list feels this was a bad idea, > but* [...] > And there we have the same basic mantra again "it would be nice if the telescope could have been built *BUT*" *> unlike you, we are making an attempt to get our head around why it > happened,* > It's no great mystery, it happened because evil stupid people prevailed. We can speculate but it's impossible to know for certain what historic factors conspired to make them evil and stupid and, unless you had access to a time machine, it wouldn't help in the slightest even if you could pinpoint the exact cause because they'd still be evil and stupid. > > *> what is needed is people with more of a clue about politics than you to > counter-organise.* > And yet you support this list's radical new policy (at one time not so long ago it was intensely political) of ignoring the elephant in the room. You want to talk about political theory but don't want to talk about testing how well those very abstract theories work in the real world. I would humbly suggest that too many people talk about hole theory when they don't know how to actually dig a hole. > *> Perhaps I should just work on killfiling the obviously stupid people on > the list* > EXCELLENT IDEA! I'm a libertarian so I'm not going to put a gun to your head and make you read what I write. You think I'm stupid so just don't read what I write. Problem solved. As for me I've never killfiled anyone in my life and I think a few have been even stupider than you, but that's just my preference and there is no debating matters of taste. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 15:56:22 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:56:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:58 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I don't understand what psi means besides some kind of phenomenon not > described by science, in which case they will of course never be published > in Nature, because Nature is for phenomena that have been scientifically > verified.* > That's just silly. 20 years ago Nature published an article proving that a certain phenomenon existed, the acceleration of the universe, at the time nobody could explain how it worked or why, and they can't do it even today, but the evidence the phenomenon existed was overwhelming so they were delighted to publish it and would do the same for psi except for the fact that the evidence for it stinks to high heaven. I don't demand a article that explains how psi works, I just want an article that shows that there is something that needs explaining. > *I don't think John can even explain what he is saying won't be published > in nature. * > I'm saying that evidence for the existence of mind reading or foretelling the future or telekinesis or remote viewing or talking with the dead will not be published. There are lots of mysteries in science and Nature would love to publish reports of a new one if the evidence was good. > > *It seems like a very nebulous statement.* > It's binary, such a article will either be published or it won't. That's about as un-nebulous as you can get. 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 Dec 30 17:15:53 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:15:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What if psi is an unreliable thing? In college my class took that test with four shapes. One person looked at it and the other person guessed what it was. Nobody got above chance except one guy who was doing 80%. The next day the did 80%. Then he 'lost' it. Back to chance. It could very well be that the guy really had something. Of course the odds are that it was a fluke. If it exists and it is unreliable in every situation we will never know it. bill w On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 9:59 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:58 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> I don't understand what psi means besides some kind of phenomenon not >> described by science, in which case they will of course never be published >> in Nature, because Nature is for phenomena that have been scientifically >> verified.* >> > > That's just silly. 20 years ago Nature published an article proving that a > certain phenomenon existed, the acceleration of the universe, at the time > nobody could explain how it worked or why, and they can't do it even today, > but the evidence the phenomenon existed was overwhelming so they were > delighted to publish it and would do the same for psi except for the fact > that the evidence for it stinks to high heaven. I don't demand a article > that explains how psi works, I just want an article that shows that there > is something that needs explaining. > > > *I don't think John can even explain what he is saying won't be >> published in nature. * >> > > I'm saying that evidence for the existence of mind reading or foretelling > the future or telekinesis or remote viewing or talking with the dead will > not be published. There are lots of mysteries in science and Nature would > love to publish reports of a new one if the evidence was good. > > >> > *It seems like a very nebulous statement.* >> > > It's binary, such a article will either be published or it won't. That's > about as un-nebulous as you can get. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 17:46:49 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 12:46:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 12:18 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What if psi is an unreliable thing? > Very recently scientists discovered that xenon-124 was not stable as had previously been thought but was VERY slightly radioactive, it turns out it if you watched one atom of xenon-124 for 18 thousand billion billion years there is only a 50% chance you will see it decay, and yet scientists were able to detect that decay. Is psi more unreliable than that? > > In college my class took that test with four shapes. One person looked > at it and the other person guessed what it was. Nobody got above chance > except one guy who was doing 80%. The next day the did 80%. Then he > 'lost' it. Back to chance. > And that is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to happen if it's all due to chance, it's very easy to be fooled by probability if you're not extremely careful. It's not as if psi was the first time scientists tried to measure something that was ultra rare and elusive with unreliable equipment, experimentalists successfully do it every day, it's how they make their living. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 20:12:44 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:12:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Molecular Materialism In-Reply-To: <20191230013628.Horde.AiaK7dI6nc9qvB9uPMDqXe7@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191230013628.Horde.AiaK7dI6nc9qvB9uPMDqXe7@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: Hi Stuart, On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:23 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Quoting Brent Allsop: > > Stuart LaForge pointed out some great new ways to empirically test for > > Molecular Materialism. > > > > > > Will responded to some of the other stuff Stuart was saying with: > > > > > > determining what wavelengths can be seen is not the same as determining > > what qualia are experienced. > > > > > > I agree with Will here. I think it is incorrect to assume that glutamate > > or redness is always affiliated with red light. It is more likely that > > whatever is most important to that particular species will be represented > > with glutamate/redness. We need to be able to pick the strawberries from > > the green leaves. Since the strawberries are most important to us, and > > since the ripe ones are the ones that reflect red light, that is why our > > brain chooses to highlight the important ripe ones with glutamate > redness. > > For example, I believe bees can see wavelengths we can?t, which are the > > wavelengths most likely to be reflected by flowers containing the most > > nectar. It is likely that evolution used glutamate redness to represent > > these different raveling?s of light to highlight what is important to the > > bees. > > Don't back-pedal on me here, Brent. If "redness" is not correlated > with red light, then "redness" is a misnomer. But who's redness? Remember there is a good chance that your redness is what most people represent green with. So who's redness would be correlated with red light? > If glutamate is > associated with red strawberries in humans and the ultraviolet > signature of flowers burgeoning with nectar in honeybees, then the > glutamate molecule cannot be said to have the redness quale as a > property. This doesn't follow at all. Why couldn't a bee use my redness to represent knowledge of something, different, entirely? > Instead, the best one could say is that glutamate is a > component of some systems that have the redness quale as a property in > the context of red light and yet others that have the "yummy flower" > quale as property in the context of ultraviolet light. That would mean > that qualia are mental constructs instead of physical properties. > I'm having troubles understanding the way you think about consciousness or what you are trying to say here. Any "mental construct" must be physical, right? You would then be forced to admit you have an abstract soul > constructed of math and numbers, poor thing. But, take heart for so do > the honeybees, and you have it so much better than they do. > How does thinking redness is just a colorness property of something like glutamate, and that glutamate can be engineered to represent anything knowledge lead one to we have a "soul constructed of numbers"? > Bat?s use echolocation instead of light. Their echolocation can detect > > objects in the air. I'd predict that a bat's brain uses the same > > redness/glutamate to highlight whatever echolocated data was is important > > to the bat. > > Yes. Now you get it, glutamate is a symbol whose meaning is purely > subjective. Congratulations, you are finally qualia blind. :-) > The word "red" is an abstract symbol, we can define it any way we want. Physical redness is a set of physics which can also be a symbol we can use to represent anything we want. We can define redness to represent red light, or green light, or knowledge of echolocated bugs flying through the air, just as we can do with the word "red" But there is nothing the word red is like, while redness is physical redness. This model is the opposite of a qualia blind model, so I don't understand what you are trying to say or describe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Dec 30 21:03:59 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 13:03:59 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001801d5bf54$a8aaedb0$fa00c910$@rainier66.com> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:09 PM ddraig at pobox.com > wrote: >> None of us are sticking up for the mob, >?Bullshit. ?John K Clark John, no one here is sticking up for the mob, not one person. Everyone here wants the telescope. I sincerely recommend you take some time from gazing at the heavens and gaze deeply within yourself. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 00:54:50 2019 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig@pobox.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 11:54:50 +1100 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 06:58, John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:09 PM ddraig at pobox.com wrote: > > >> > *None of us are sticking up for the mob,* >> > > Bullshit. You're crying about past injustices, most centuries old, and > somehow think that wailing will magically help get the telescope built. It > won't. > I'm not. I'm saying that thinking logically does sometimes does not work when a horde of people are upset about something. This entire rambling discussion si not at all about the mob. It is about you. > And in the end all the mobs wishes came true and everybody lived happily > ever after, except for the scientists, and the majority of residents in the > state of Hawaii, and all rational people everywhere. > Yes, politics trumps logic. It almost always does. This is why idiots and vicious maniacs wind up in power despite the sensible people saying "but, this will end badly" - because the bad peopel have the numbers, and the smart people feel that logic and careful explanation is all that is needed. > >* Unfortunately, the mob has sway locally, * > > > Has sway locally... what a pleasant lovely sounding way to say that the > rule of law has broken down and the dark anti-enlightenment forces have > won. > I will just refer you to most of human history as an example of what you are describing. Ignoring this behaviour will not make it go away. >> And in no shape way or form do you agree with me. Every defender of that >> evil ignorant anti-science anti-enlightenment mob has the same basic >> mantra, "it would be nice if the telescope could be built *BUT* ..." >> > > > NONE OF US ARE AGREEING WITH THE MOB- we are attempting to *understand* > the mob, > > I know. And if you are successful at the end of your long deliberations you'll be able to understand why the mob is ignorant evil and stupid. Eh, the Gmail client has just broken it's own quoting, so I'm going to use > so the sensible and the warped comments are distinguished. I don't think the mob is evil. Evil? You really believe in the concept of evil, AND you apply to it to a bunch of superstitious people? That's a remarkably colonial way to look at things. We all understand why the mob is stupid. I guess people who have engaged with you at greater length than I have understand why you are stupid. > But after that you're right back to square one where you started because the mob will be just as ignorant evil > and stupid as they were before you started to think about them. The only way things will get done, is to understand why the mob thinks this way, and either convince them otherwise, or else organise an effective counter to them. This is what most of this thread has been about - an attempt to understand why the people behaved this way, which you have chosen to just not even attempt to do, and then you've decided the rest of us think the same way. Despite being repeatedly told this is not how we think. Which is why I think you are trolling, and not even trolling for the lols, trolling because you are arguing with a mythical version of us you've constructed inside your head, instead of actually attempting to understand what other people have written. Are you capable of understanding other people's point of view? > You seem to think it's the astronomers fault for not casting some sort of magical spell that would have pacified the protestors, I do, actually. It's the astronomer's fault for not adequately engaging with the public opinion which resulted in the project being shut down. It's called "politics" - something the science community generally is not very good at, and you are a prime example of this. > but they were offered all sorts of compromises but the mob, sensing total victory, saw no reason to compromise so they rejected them all. I don't know what more the astronomers could have done without resorting to animal tranquilizers. > Been less shit at politics, I guess. *> I understand why people on the list call you a troll. you are a troll.* > > Then Mr.Newbie I am the internet's longest living troll because I've been on this list for close to a quarter of a century. > Do you really think I'd write a post about things I didn't believe in just to get the goat of a silly pissant like you? I think you are writing about things you don't understand - the viewpoint of pretty much everyone else who has responded to this thread. And I'm not a noob, I have probably been on the list longer than you. I just don't read or write to this list very often. > >>That's not politics that's just crime. >> > > *> It's all much the same.* > > People like to say stuff like that because they think it makes them seem street smart, worldly-wise, but I think it just makes them look dumb. No, it makes me look like someone who understands how people and society work. Politics is the interaction of people in large groups, often leading to or bound by the laws those people enact. Crime is the interaction of people in small to large groups, governed by those laws. It's all much the same. > What you say in the above is not a skeptical view it is a cynical view and the two things are opposites. Please don't attempt to do my thinking for me, you are patently not qualified. Most of this thread has been you thinking you know what people mean (despite the actual words they are using) and then arguing against that mythical point. As you have done here. > A cynic believes in nothing he hears, and that is closely related to a very naive person who > believes everything he hears because neither view requires any brain power whatsoever. > But a skeptic believes some things he hears but not others, and for that you need a brain. Again: this has nothing to do with what I said *> Now you are going to spout some freedom rubbish when it was really about >> a small group of middle-class people not wanting to pay taxes.* >> > > I think you're confusing me with a Trump suporter; I know you're new > I've been on this list since 1991 or 1992, it's a bit of a blur. I was hiscdcj at lux.latrobe.edu.au and since 1995 I've been ddraig at pobox.com > *> Power comes from the barrel of a gun. * >> > > So why did you complain that I didn't want to debate the finer points of > property rights if the only thing that matters is who has the bigger gun? > Where do you think these property rights came from? God? They came from will of the people. The telescope was stopped by the will of the people. To accomplish something that has widespread opposition you need to engage with and change the will of the people. Chanting "but mah logics is smarter than your mob" won't change anything. > > *Unfortunately the mob had the numbers and so the telescope was > cancelled.* > > The mob did NOT have the numbers, but they did have the bigger gun, and if > you've got that and the rule of law breaks down then you win. > Yes. Correct. So you need to convince the mob, or have a bigger gun. Logic is peripheral. *> unlike you, we are making an attempt to get our head around why it >> happened,* >> > > It's no great mystery, it happened because evil stupid people prevailed. > We can speculate but it's impossible to know for certain what historic > factors conspired to make them evil and stupid and, unless you had access > to a time machine, it wouldn't help in the slightest even if you could > pinpoint the exact cause because they'd still be evil and stupid. > 1: I seriously doubt they are "evil" 2: here we have the entire point of this tiresome ranty thread: pinpointing the exact cause IS PRECISELY WHAT IS NEEDED - you can't change people's minds unless you first attempt to understand their position. > > >> >> *> what is needed is people with more of a clue about politics than you >> to counter-organise.* >> > > And yet you support this list's radical new policy (at one time not so > long ago it was intensely political) of ignoring the elephant in the room. > You want to talk about political theory but don't want to talk about > testing how well those very abstract theories work in the real world. > But this sounds like you. You refuse to accept that a bunch of angry people have more weight than a patently useful and sensible project, when mobs of people are rarely sensible. So, you either brute-force it (probably not possible on Hawaii) or you attempt to understand the mob and change their minds. Calling them "evil" is just writing them off and refusing to attempt to understand why they feel the way they do. > *> Perhaps I should just work on killfiling the obviously stupid people on >> the list* >> > > EXCELLENT IDEA! I'm a libertarian so I'm not going to put a gun to your > head and make you read what I write. > Putting a gun to my head would not work. You think I'm stupid so just don't read what I write. > That's the only good idea you've had so far. Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://fav.me/dqkgpd our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 00:56:05 2019 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig@pobox.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 11:56:05 +1100 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <001801d5bf54$a8aaedb0$fa00c910$@rainier66.com> References: <001801d5bf54$a8aaedb0$fa00c910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 08:38, spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:09 PM ddraig at pobox.com wrote: > > > > >> *None of us are sticking up for the mob,* > > > > >?Bullshit. ?John K Clark > > > > John, no one here is sticking up for the mob, not one person. Everyone > here wants the telescope. > > > > I sincerely recommend you take some time from gazing at the heavens and > gaze deeply within yourself. > Does he do this often? Just ignore what people are saying and argue against the distorted image he has built in his head? Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://fav.me/dqkgpd our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 01:21:39 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 17:21:39 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <001801d5bf54$a8aaedb0$fa00c910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:58 PM ddraig--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 08:38, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:09 PM ddraig at pobox.com wrote: >> >> >> *None of us are sticking up for the mob,* >> >> >> >> >?Bullshit. ?John K Clark >> >> >> >> John, no one here is sticking up for the mob, not one person. Everyone >> here wants the telescope. >> >> >> >> I sincerely recommend you take some time from gazing at the heavens and >> gaze deeply within yourself. >> > > > Does he do this often? Just ignore what people are saying and argue > against the distorted image he has built in his head? > Often enough that I ignore some of his posts. He's not as bad about it as Trump is, fortunately. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ddraig at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 03:48:11 2019 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig@pobox.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 14:48:11 +1100 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <001801d5bf54$a8aaedb0$fa00c910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 12:21, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 4:58 PM ddraig--- via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 08:38, spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:09 PM ddraig at pobox.com wrote: >>> >>> >> *None of us are sticking up for the mob,* >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Bullshit. ?John K Clark >>> >>> >>> >>> John, no one here is sticking up for the mob, not one person. Everyone >>> here wants the telescope. >>> >>> >>> >>> I sincerely recommend you take some time from gazing at the heavens and >>> gaze deeply within yourself. >>> >> >> >> Does he do this often? Just ignore what people are saying and argue >> against the distorted image he has built in his head? >> > > Often enough that I ignore some of his posts. He's not as bad about it as > Trump is, fortunately. > He reminds me of my Dad. Halfway through *the first sentence* he has already guessed ahead to what you obviously are going to say (which is is always incorrect) and then goes on a virulent tirade against what you were never going to say in the first place. And then it's impossible to correct his internal model of your internal model (!) so I usually just give up. Which I've pretty much done here. Sleep apnoea is a vicious condition. Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://fav.me/dqkgpd our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 04:44:34 2019 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 23:44:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 2:54 PM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Then Mr.Newbie I am the internet's longest living troll because I've been > on this list for close to a quarter of a century. > I thought you meant oldest living troll.. Then i realized pointing that out might make me also a troll. Though perhaps you meant longest-living had only forgotten to properly hyphenate.. Then i realized pointing that out might make me a grammar nazi (or is it grammar-nazi?) Anyway, i appreciate you being a troll... even when you admonished me for calling you a troll. :) however, insulting a person (vs insulting their idea) makes you a boor. Can you raise your standard and return to thoroughly destroying an idea without commenting on the person proposing it? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 07:18:59 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 02:18:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <1910C9D1-3EF1-478F-9FAA-5B094E8B7EFB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 08:30 John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:*.* > > It's amazing to me that so many people on the Extropian List feel that > preventing that telescope from being built on that mountain by any means > necessary is a hill they're willing to die on. > !?!?!?!?!? Literally everyone here thinks the telescope should be built. You are daft. Fuck off. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 07:33:13 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 02:33:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 17:43 John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > But the only thing in the universe that is known for certain to experience > [qualia] is me. > Wrong again, it's me. :) You are merely a psychic representation of my petulance. ;) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 10:56:24 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 11:56:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties Message-ID: Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties The 20-twenties could be a magic decade for space expansion, starting with the Moon. And then, forward to the stars! https://turingchurch.net/happy-2020-and-welcome-to-the-magic-twenties-bed4ae6cf105 ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 12:57:21 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 07:57:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: <001801d5bf54$a8aaedb0$fa00c910$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 7:59 PM ddraig--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > *> Does he do this often?* > If you've been on the list since 1991 you should already know if I do this often, I'm probably the most frequent poster. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 13:09:15 2019 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 21:09:15 +0800 Subject: [ExI] watt was that? In-Reply-To: References: <004d01d5bcce$d0cb0ab0$72612010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Bill, being an appeaser just doesn't work, when dealing with a power hungry bully, like the Communist Party of China. They will view your "enlightenment" as encouragement to engage in more and more covert and open aggression against the West, and our values such as democracy and civil liberty. It didn't work with Hitler, or the Soviets... The people of Taiwan must not be abandoned, and if they were, it would send a message to all of our allies, that we were weak, and not to be trusted, in the face of an ever stronger China. It's reassuring to think the hardline PRC hold on their people will lessen, but considering the current leader for life, and his moves to take things old school, but with cutting edge tech to control his citizens, and also to focus on building a military to rival ours, we are on track for an eventual war. China feels they must conquer Taiwan, to finish a war of unification, but we must protect Taiwan, to maintain our reputation of strength, for a world growingly fearful of China's tyranny. I think even if Taiwan is peaceably absorbed by China (extremely unlikely), that we will still not avoid a cold war rivaling anything we had with the old Soviet Union. I can only hope that China will eventually mature, and not be an enemy to the West, but that could take a long time. On Sunday, December 29, 2019, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In a few decades China could change. Look at Hong Kong. Those people > don't want war - they want freedom to trade and make money. Just what > would happen if two countries that were as economically entangled as we two > are,have a shooting war? Over what? Taiwan? I say let that one go. Not > worth American deaths. Neither is trying to kick Russians out of Ukraine. > Great trade between us two is a win-win situation. Any war is a win-lose. > Or lose-lose. What did France and Britain get out of all those wars of > lasting significance? Nothing. Lots of dead people. Honor? Territory? > Nah. Let's vote for pacifists. > > bill w > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:06 AM John Grigg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I have gotten rather fixated on the rise of tyrannical China, and I >> strongly suspect we will have an ugly war with them, as they attempt to >> conquer Taiwan, probably around 2040... My love for the future and >> transhumanism has been dampened, by this rivalry between America and China, >> in which I sadly suspect, America may not be the ultimate winner. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 7:52 PM John Grigg >> wrote: >> >>> If I had the money, I would love to have a transhumanist themed "Great >>> Gatsby" style party, no expense spared! Lol If only... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 4:22 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I am reminded of Rupert Murdoch: a few years ago he was asked what was >>>> going to be the price of DVD units. He said - free. Because they want us >>>> to buy/rent movies, I suppose. Anyhow, I have this plasma,50" tv I was >>>> keeping my eye on years ago. It was $4000. I bought one when it was $600. >>>> Now I can get a TV that's smart, better picture, (incredible is a better >>>> word) for less than $500. (a TCL - what? - who?) Ain't competition great? >>>> >>>> My plasma I have tried to give away - no takers yet. >>>> >>>> Better, newer, and cheaper - that the mantra of the electronics >>>> industry it appears. When will it ever end? >>>> >>>> I dunno, just like I dunno when I will end, but I am hoping to see most >>>> of the 20s. >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:47 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:20 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The second decade of the 21st century has been great. I predict the >>>>>> third will be even better. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Concurred - in net. There have been some serious downs as well, but >>>>> in total outweighed by the number and quantity of the ups. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 15:02:12 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 10:02:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 9:07 PM ddraig--- via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *This entire rambling discussion si not at all about the mob. It is about > you.* > Wow, I don't know what to say...I'm flattered you think I'm important enough to deserve such a long discussion. > *> I don't think the mob is evil. * > I know, and that's exactly why I objected so strongly when you said we agreed. Hey Spike... do you still say not one person on the list is sticking up for that mob? > > Evil? > Yes evil. > You really believe in the concept of evil, AND you apply to it to a bunch > of superstitious people? > I believe "evil" is a word in the English language and if you can't label behavior that not only embodies stupidity and superstition it promotes it and even prevents people who are not stupid or superstitious from learning more about half the universe as "evil" then there will never be a good time to use that word and it might as well be expunged from the English language as in 1984 where they kept destroying words and the official newspeak dictionary kept getting smaller. And now if you really want to boost your street cred with the politically correct crowd you should lambast me for putting a label on a mob's behavior. The PC people hate "label" even more than "evil"; it's OK to call something in your own culture evil but not in another culture, however you should never put a label on anyone or anything. * > That's a remarkably colonial way to look at things.* > Is finding out more about half the universe colonial too? > *> The only way things will get done, is to understand why the mob thinks > this way, and either convince them otherwise, or else organise an effective > counter to them. * > Forget it, it's over, they've won. * > Are you capable of understanding other people's point of view?* > Yes but to tell the truth I'm much more interested in other people's actions than other people's point of view. You may have a beautiful point of view but if you're chasing me with a bloody ax while you're having those beatific visions there would be other things about you that would concern me more. > >> You seem to think it's the astronomers fault for not casting some sort > of magical spell that would have pacified the protestors, > > *> I do, actually. It's the astronomer's fault for not adequately > engaging with the public opinion* > Hey Spike... do you still say not one person on the list is sticking up for that mob? >> they were offered all sorts of compromises but the mob, sensing total > victory, saw no reason to compromise so they rejected them all. I don't > know what more the astronomers could have done without resorting to animal > tranquilizers. > > > *Been less shit at politics, I guess.* > Thanks for the specifics, now we know exactly what to do the next time the enlightenment (in David Pinker's meaning of the word) is threatened by an evil ignorant superstitious mob, all we need to do is go back in a time machine and then be less shit at politics. > * > I have probably been on the list longer than you. * > My first post was on March 3 1993, you've been remarkably quiet over those decades. > *> Where do you think these property rights came from? God?* > I think property rights are irrelevant as are where they came from because they are only important if you have the rule of law, and there was none on that mountain. *> The telescope was stopped by the will of the people. * > That is just factually incorrect. The overwhelming majority of Hawaiians, even native Hawaiians, wanted the telescope built, but a lawless mob didn't, and the mob got it's way. The will of the people was ignored. > *> I seriously doubt they are "evil"* > I know you don't, that's why you use apology quotes around that word, and that's why I don't think I'm being delusional when I say you're sticking up for that mob. > * > the entire point of this tiresome ranty thread: pinpointing the exact > cause IS PRECISELY WHAT IS NEEDED * > WHY IS THAT NEEDED? Nobody has any idea how you could do it but even if you could somehow pinpoint the precise historical event that made them evil stupid and superstitious what then? Go back in a time machine and change things so they become less evil stupid and superstitious? > > * you can't change people's minds unless you first attempt to > understand their position.* > If they didn't obtain their position through logic you can't change it with logic. And you can throw around the word "politics" as if it's a magical charm that will solve everything all you want but sometime absolutely nothing will change a person's mind. So then all you can do is try to find a way that person doesn't get his way. And yes I know, that's easier said than done. *> You refuse to accept that a bunch of angry people have more weight than > a patently useful and sensible project.* > You keep saying that and I don't know why. I wish I could ignore them but I can't, and I've said more than once that I accept the fact that the bunch of angry stupid people have won. > *> Calling them "evil" is just writing them off* > I may be as stupid as you say I am but I'm not stupid enough to write off evil because I know the enlightenment will certainly face it again. *> and refusing to attempt to understand why they feel the way they do.* > I would prefer to use my finite brainpower to figure out how to make evil ignorant people powerless than understanding exactly what historical event made them evil and stupid because one way might actually change things and the other won't. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 16:09:13 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 10:09:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] john Message-ID: I think everyone has heard everything John has had to say, and agree or disagree. So why not just stop the whole conversation? Stop replying to him. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 16:26:01 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 09:26:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Chalmers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:34 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 17:43 John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> But the only thing in the universe that is known for certain to >> experience [qualia] is me. >> > > Wrong again, it's me. :) You are merely a psychic representation of my > petulance. ;) > >> Failure of all possible attempts to create a neural ponytail could verify this claim. But I'm predicting it will be possible, and that achieving such will falsify this claim. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbard at wisc.edu Tue Dec 31 16:40:26 2019 From: hibbard at wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 16:40:26 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties Message-ID: Very interesting article. All the best for the new year. I agree that we're not close to conscious AI and mind uploading, but think that the 2020s will be magic because of dramatic, even shocking progress with AI. Ray Kurzweil predicted human level AI by 2029 based on physical computational ability. If he's too optimistic it is still true that intelligence is composed of many different skills. An AI that doesn't equal us in all skills may still shock us with some of its skills. Hold on tight because it's coming. On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties > > The 20-twenties could be a magic decade for space expansion, starting > with the Moon. And then, forward to the stars! > > https://turingchurch.net/happy-2020-and-welcome-to-the-magic-twenties-bed4ae6cf105 From giulio at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 17:09:06 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:09:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hope so ! On 2019. Dec 31., Tue at 17:41, Bill Hibbard via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Very interesting article. All the best for the new year. > > I agree that we're not close to conscious AI and mind > uploading, but think that the 2020s will be magic > because of dramatic, even shocking progress with AI. > Ray Kurzweil predicted human level AI by 2029 based on > physical computational ability. If he's too optimistic > it is still true that intelligence is composed of many > different skills. An AI that doesn't equal us in all > skills may still shock us with some of its skills. > Hold on tight because it's coming. > > On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties > > > > The 20-twenties could be a magic decade for space expansion, starting > > with the Moon. And then, forward to the stars! > > > > > https://turingchurch.net/happy-2020-and-welcome-to-the-magic-twenties-bed4ae6cf105 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Dec 31 17:16:08 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:16:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] john In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At times I disagree with John, but his posts are always thoughtful and interesting. Happy 2020s to all! On 2019. Dec 31., Tue at 17:11, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I think everyone has heard everything John has had to say, and agree or > disagree. > > So why not just stop the whole conversation? Stop replying to him. > > 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 Tue Dec 31 17:26:26 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:26:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: <3a76ae64-663d-80f3-cc4d-471aad8fe5f4@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:33 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Red? is a label we give to something that reflects or emits red light. > It is elemental ?redness? that we are talking about.* I agree "red" is a label but the label *IS* the qualia and the number of different types of labels you have available determines how many different colors you can experience. If you only had 1 type you'd be completely blind, if you had 2 types you'd see everything in black and white, or red and white it makes no difference because your objective behavior would be the same as would your subjective experience. > *Redness is a label for a very different set of elemental physics than > ?red?. * There are many physical, chemical and electronic ways to make labels, but if you're interest is qualia it's not important what particular process wrote the labels, the important thing is how many different types of labels there are. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 17:31:45 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:31:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] john In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:18 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> At times I disagree with John, but his posts are always thoughtful and > interesting.* > *Happy 2020s to all!* > Thank you Giulio. And have a very Happy New Year. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jose.cordeiro at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 17:23:37 2019 From: jose.cordeiro at gmail.com (Jose Cordeiro) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties In-Reply-To: <471129197.5315741.1577812838434@mail.yahoo.com> References: <471129197.5315741.1577812838434@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1812923814.5286018.1577813017589@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Giulio and friends, ? ? ?Excellent analysis, and I would also emphasize rejuvenation technologies. Also Ray Kurzweil says that we will reach Longevity Escape Velicity by 2029 (the Methuselahrity), and immortality by 2045 (including full rejuvenation and transformation capabilities:-) ? ? ?Let me wish you all a wonderful 2020... one year closer to the singularity... and immortality...?Big Chronology of Life on Earth | | | | | | | | | | | Big Chronology of Life on Earth Jos? Luis Cordeiro summarizes the most relevant information from the very distant past to our immediate future s... | | | ? ? ?Futuristically yours, ? ? ?La vie est belle! Jose Cordeiro, MBA, PhD?(www.cordeiro.org) On Tuesday, December 31, 2019, 05:41:29 PM GMT+1, Bill Hibbard via extropy-chat wrote: Very interesting article. All the best for the new year. I agree that we're not close to conscious AI and mind uploading, but think that the 2020s will be magic because of dramatic, even shocking progress with AI. Ray Kurzweil predicted human level AI by 2029 based on physical computational ability. If he's too optimistic it is still true that intelligence is composed of many different skills. An AI that doesn't equal us in all skills may still shock us with some of its skills. Hold on tight because it's coming. On Tue, 31 Dec 2019, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties > > The 20-twenties could be a magic decade for space expansion, starting > with the Moon. And then, forward to the stars! > > https://turingchurch.net/happy-2020-and-welcome-to-the-magic-twenties-bed4ae6cf105 _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list 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 Dec 31 18:37:23 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 10:37:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting note on that "every 30 years - though WWII delayed things". >From what I've heard, the 1890s could qualify as well (especially around the automobile), despite (or perhaps partially because of) economic turmoil for about half its length. In the US, the 1850s saw peak migration to the American West; the Civil War right afterward was certainly enough to pause the cycle for a decade. The 1820s, as Wikipedia sums it, "saw the advent of photography and rail transport" - major revolutions on their own. Which would mean the 2020s may be magical if we can avoid a major war. Given the current governments of most major powers around the world, that is a big "if". On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:58 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties > > The 20-twenties could be a magic decade for space expansion, starting with > the Moon. And then, forward to the stars! > > > https://turingchurch.net/happy-2020-and-welcome-to-the-magic-twenties-bed4ae6cf105 > ? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 18:57:44 2019 From: henrik.ohrstrom at gmail.com (Henrik Ohrstrom) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 19:57:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] john In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nope, John has been a constant joy to read since I started lurking on the lists around -95. You have some acidification left before you can be as wonderfully sarcastic and ironic :-p My main problem with regards to Johns eloquence is that it coulors my own way of speech. But on the whole, those who are wide open to linguistic feedback based on lack of insight and clarity, need some of that. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't speak up, linga acidica work's is not done unless it's opposed. And the line to a proper flamewar is of course hard to distinguish in the bruhaha. /Henrik Den tis 31 dec. 2019 18:36John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:18 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> At times I disagree with John, but his posts are always thoughtful and >> interesting.* >> *Happy 2020s to all!* >> > > Thank you Giulio. And have a very Happy New Year. > > John K Clark > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 19:53:03 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:53:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] iq misconception Message-ID: (In response to a passing remark made today) This battle has been going on for many decades: is intelligence just one thing, generally called g, or is it several several things? The vast majority of studies support the g concept. It's simply a matter of prediction, which is the main thing you want a test to do. Whatever test predicts the best is the best, and the Binet-Simon and Weschler tests are unsurpassed. This is all assuming that factor analysis is a valid technique, which some dispute. Yes, there are different skills - some drawing heavily on g, and some not at all, like musical ability. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 19:54:56 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:54:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just what is it that anyone here sees as good reasons to fight a major war? Yes, you can come up with thousands of 'if'scenarios. I want reasons that exist right now. bill w On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:39 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Interesting note on that "every 30 years - though WWII delayed things". > From what I've heard, the 1890s could qualify as well (especially around > the automobile), despite (or perhaps partially because of) economic turmoil > for about half its length. In the US, the 1850s saw peak migration to the > American West; the Civil War right afterward was certainly enough to pause > the cycle for a decade. The 1820s, as Wikipedia sums it, "saw the advent > of photography and rail transport" - major revolutions on their own. > > Which would mean the 2020s may be magical if we can avoid a major war. > Given the current governments of most major powers around the world, that > is a big "if". > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:58 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties >> >> The 20-twenties could be a magic decade for space expansion, starting >> with the Moon. And then, forward to the stars! >> >> >> https://turingchurch.net/happy-2020-and-welcome-to-the-magic-twenties-bed4ae6cf105 >> ? >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Dec 31 20:04:30 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 12:04:30 -0800 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009601d5c015$83d0e7d0$8b72b770$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 9:07 PM ddraig--- via extropy-chat > wrote: This entire rambling discussion si not at all about the mob. It is about you. Wow, I don't know what to say...I'm flattered you think I'm important enough to deserve such a long discussion. > I don't think the mob is evil. I know, and that's exactly why I objected so strongly when you said we agreed. Hey Spike... do you still say not one person on the list is sticking up for that mob? I do. The mobs have their motives, profit, superstition, etc. They won this round because they were willing to commit violence. I urge us all to take a step back for a minute and think in bigger terms. We have examples in California where the NIMBYs have been empowered to stop developments by claiming their ancestors once walked here. They aren?t even required to prove it: that?s one of those cases where we Americans are bending over backwards to try to be completely equitable to everyone. Are the NIMBYs evil? They have their motives. Developers usually quietly pay them off to go away. When that happens, the others get the message, and make sure they are in line to get a big payoff. Some there may even believe their ancestors once walked there, I don?t know, but I do know the end result: new developments cost so much that more and more people can?t afford a home. Result: go to San Francisco and see it for yourself. Evil? Well, they realize they can take advantage of our laws to make money. Lawyers do that. Are they evil? Depends on how you look at it I suppose. This mob stopping the telescope wants a payoff. They paid them before, now they want more. That?s the nature of this game. My prediction is that we will be forced to go to an inferior site elsewhere, somewhere where they have a bit different method of dealing with protesting mobs. We can call this evil if we want, and stopping that telescope is evil from my point of view, but I must say in a sense we brought this on ourselves. We like to think we can make everything fair in this old world but I think we cannot. There is one more point here: a minority willing to commit violence is more powerful than the majority. This mob is acting illegally and are willing to physically harm the astronomers and builders. With that willingness, they win, just as the mafia wins so many rounds, for they are willing to commit violence. I don?t have the answers. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 21:38:14 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 15:38:14 -0600 Subject: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead In-Reply-To: <009601d5c015$83d0e7d0$8b72b770$@rainier66.com> References: <009601d5c015$83d0e7d0$8b72b770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I suspect the protesters, Hawaii and everywhere else, win because of our guilt. What empires have always done is run roughshod over native peoples, some with genocide (intended or not - small pox or weapons). Read about the British Empire, for instance. Terrible things they did to the people of India, just for one example. In the world we know those things don't go on much and the nations that did it are suffering from collective guilt and it's not just the way out liberals either. We did not and don't respect the religions and culture of other people and tried and are trying to replace theirs with ours. And that's just the way human beings have always been - us versus them. That's why I say, with the knowledge that nobody will listen to me now or ever, that what we should be doing to improve the human race is not tap our brains into computers or in some way increase our intelligence; we should be trying to develop our empathy for others. I would like to make 'This hurts me as much as it hurts you' a reality. bill w On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:06 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *John Clark via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] The Thirty Meter Telescope is now officially dead > > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 9:07 PM ddraig--- via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > *This entire rambling discussion si not at all about the mob. It is about > you.* > > > > Wow, I don't know what to say...I'm flattered you think I'm important > enough to deserve such a long discussion. > > > > *> **I don't think the mob is evil. * > > > > I know, and that's exactly why I objected so strongly when you said we > agreed. > > Hey Spike... do you still say not one person on the list is sticking up > for that mob? > > > > > > > > > > > > I do. The mobs have their motives, profit, superstition, etc. They won > this round because they were willing to commit violence. > > > > I urge us all to take a step back for a minute and think in bigger terms. > We have examples in California where the NIMBYs have been empowered to > stop developments by claiming their ancestors once walked here. They > aren?t even required to prove it: that?s one of those cases where we > Americans are bending over backwards to try to be completely equitable to > everyone. > > > > Are the NIMBYs evil? They have their motives. Developers usually quietly > pay them off to go away. When that happens, the others get the message, > and make sure they are in line to get a big payoff. Some there may even > believe their ancestors once walked there, I don?t know, but I do know the > end result: new developments cost so much that more and more people can?t > afford a home. Result: go to San Francisco and see it for yourself. > > > > Evil? Well, they realize they can take advantage of our laws to make > money. Lawyers do that. Are they evil? Depends on how you look at it I > suppose. > > > > This mob stopping the telescope wants a payoff. They paid them before, > now they want more. That?s the nature of this game. > > > > My prediction is that we will be forced to go to an inferior site > elsewhere, somewhere where they have a bit different method of dealing with > protesting mobs. > > > > We can call this evil if we want, and stopping that telescope is evil from > my point of view, but I must say in a sense we brought this on ourselves. > We like to think we can make everything fair in this old world but I think > we cannot. > > > > There is one more point here: a minority willing to commit violence is > more powerful than the majority. This mob is acting illegally and are > willing to physically harm the astronomers and builders. With that > willingness, they win, just as the mafia wins so many rounds, for they are > willing to commit violence. > > > > I don?t have the answers. > > > > 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 Tue Dec 31 21:46:02 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 13:46:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's less that there are good reasons, and more that it has happened and will almost certainly happen again. On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 1:09 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Just what is it that anyone here sees as good reasons to fight a major > war? Yes, you can come up with thousands of 'if'scenarios. I want reasons > that exist right now. bill w > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:39 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Interesting note on that "every 30 years - though WWII delayed things". >> From what I've heard, the 1890s could qualify as well (especially around >> the automobile), despite (or perhaps partially because of) economic turmoil >> for about half its length. In the US, the 1850s saw peak migration to the >> American West; the Civil War right afterward was certainly enough to pause >> the cycle for a decade. The 1820s, as Wikipedia sums it, "saw the advent >> of photography and rail transport" - major revolutions on their own. >> >> Which would mean the 2020s may be magical if we can avoid a major war. >> Given the current governments of most major powers around the world, that >> is a big "if". >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:58 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Happy 2020, and welcome to the magic twenties >>> >>> The 20-twenties could be a magic decade for space expansion, starting >>> with the Moon. And then, forward to the stars! >>> >>> >>> https://turingchurch.net/happy-2020-and-welcome-to-the-magic-twenties-bed4ae6cf105 >>> ? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 22:27:35 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 15:27:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Mental Phenomena In-Reply-To: References: <3a76ae64-663d-80f3-cc4d-471aad8fe5f4@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: Yes, an important thing is ?how many different types of labels there are.? But if ?The ?red? label IS the qualia?, which physical qualia, um, I mean, which physical quality are we talking: glutamate or glycine? Or are you just pointing out that you are still qualia blind (or just saying quine[means ignore] qualia forever), and proud of it, after all they are all functionally the same right? Star Wars Spoiler alert: Not that I think being proud of it is a bad thing. At the end I think Ray shouldn?t have said she is ?Ray Skywalker.? She should have said I?m Ray Palpatine, and proud of it. On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:28 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 3:33 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> Red? is a label we give to something that reflects or emits red light. >> It is elemental ?redness? that we are talking about.* > > > I agree "red" is a label but the label *IS* the qualia and the number of > different types of labels you have available determines how many different > colors you can experience. If you only had 1 type you'd be completely > blind, if you had 2 types you'd see everything in black and white, or red > and white it makes no difference because your objective behavior would be > the same as would your subjective experience. > > > *Redness is a label for a very different set of elemental physics than >> ?red?. * > > > There are many physical, chemical and electronic ways to make labels, but > if you're interest is qualia it's not important what particular process > wrote the labels, the important thing is how many different types of labels > there are. > > John K Clark > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 23:01:41 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 16:01:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] john In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John teaches me a very lot, so Thanks John. On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:59 AM Henrik Ohrstrom via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Nope, John has been a constant joy to read since I started lurking on the > lists around -95. > You have some acidification left before you can be as wonderfully > sarcastic and ironic :-p > My main problem with regards to Johns eloquence is that it coulors my own > way of speech. > But on the whole, those who are wide open to linguistic feedback based on > lack of insight and clarity, need some of that. > But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't speak up, linga acidica work's is > not done unless it's opposed. > And the line to a proper flamewar is of course hard to distinguish in the > bruhaha. > /Henrik > > Den tis 31 dec. 2019 18:36John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> skrev: > >> >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:18 PM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *> At times I disagree with John, but his posts are always thoughtful and >>> interesting.* >>> *Happy 2020s to all!* >>> >> >> Thank you Giulio. And have a very Happy New Year. >> >> 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 stathisp at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 23:19:08 2019 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 10:19:08 +1100 Subject: [ExI] john In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 03:11, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I think everyone has heard everything John has had to say, and agree or > disagree. > > So why not just stop the whole conversation? Stop replying to him. > While sometimes abrasive he is always entertaining and usually intellectually honest. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 23:28:38 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:28:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] john In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I like John very well and he is a really smart guy - he just can't let go and can't seem to believe us when we say we support his position. bill On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 5:21 PM Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 at 03:11, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I think everyone has heard everything John has had to say, and agree or >> disagree. >> >> So why not just stop the whole conversation? Stop replying to him. >> > > While sometimes abrasive he is always entertaining and usually > intellectually honest. > >> -- > 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 msd001 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 23:41:21 2019 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 18:41:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] iq misconception In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > (In response to a passing remark made today) > > This battle has been going on for many decades: is intelligence just one > thing, generally called g, or is it several several things? > As far as I know, g is 9.8m/s^2 and I will refuse to accept any attempt to have it mean anything else. I cite precedent in the AI vs AGI debate. We don't need new meanings to old words/letters/acronyms; we need whole new alphabets/emojis/idea tokens > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Dec 31 23:58:24 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 15:58:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] iq misconception In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 31, 2019, at 3:43 PM, Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 2:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >> (In response to a passing remark made today) >> >> This battle has been going on for many decades: is intelligence just one thing, generally called g, or is it several several things? > > > As far as I know, g is 9.8m/s^2 and I will refuse to accept any attempt to have it mean anything else. > > I cite precedent in the AI vs AGI debate. > > We don't need new meanings to old words/letters/acronyms; we need whole new alphabets/emojis/idea tokens As used in discussions of human intelligence and psychometrics, g has been around for about a century now. I don?t believe I?ve seen a single instance of someone in the field not understand the usage. In this case, g or ?g factor? seems to be a very helpful term. When I first became interested in the study of intelligence, I wasn?t at all confused by it, and I knew of the physics use of the same letter. (And I never confused lowercase g as used in physics with it as used in function theory (for another function so you say things like f(g(x)) = g(f(x)).) Actually, coming up with new letters, etc. each time is okay (think of Cantor using the Hebrew alphabet in his work), but I don?t see any big confusion here. Even AGI seems to be a decent distinction, though one could argue AI == AGI. (That?s what?s under discussion by those making the distinction, so I wouldn?t rule it out as meaningless if I were to think AGI is nothing more than AI. Folks inventing the term were not aiming to obfuscate to my knowledge.) Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 01:49:50 2019 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:49:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] i am software: wasRE: utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist Mary In-Reply-To: <012b01d5bc14$592e9310$0b8bb930$@rainier66.com> References: <012b01d5bc14$592e9310$0b8bb930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Your wrong, unless you see no difference between this [image: image.png] and the abstract words "red, yellow, green, purple and blue". Notice how I can redefine the words purple and blue. You can't redefine your purpleness, and blueness, it just is, and you know that more absolutely than you know anything. On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2019 at 10:43 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 4:29 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > >>>? *In other words, both (255, 0, 0) and "red" are not physically red. > You need to point to something and say: "THAT is red" to provide a physical > definition to those abstract terms. * > > > > >>?If you're interested in subjectivity, or in gaining understanding of > the most basic fundamental nature of anything, not just consciousness, > you've got to forget about definitions because ultimately that always leads > to circularity, instead you've got to use examples. You point to a ripe > tomato and say "That is (255, 0, 0), aka pure red". ? John K Clark > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] utah: RE: Frank Jackson's brilliant color scientist > Mary > > > > >?I think it's only circular if there is only one example. bill w > > > > > > The entire discussion has helped me accept what I have long suspected: I > am a digital avatar. I ?think? only in terms of numbers and equations. > You perhaps have heard of that creepy movie where the boy saw dead people, > everywhere, walking around. They didn?t even know they are dead. Well, I > am his digital counterpart: I see simulated people walking around > everywhere. They don?t even know they are software. I didn?t know I was > one until the recent qualia discussion. > > > > Be that as it may, I am a really cool avatar. Self-aware I am! (Or > should it be ?it am?? (It are? (It be?))) Of course it be only digitally > simulated self-awareness, but that?s better than none 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 128065 bytes Desc: not available URL: