From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 1 21:12:26 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 17:12:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Why_Google=E2=80=99s_Quantum_Supremacy_Milestone?= =?utf-8?q?_Matters?= Message-ID: Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson wrote a editorial in the October 30 2019 New York Times: Why Google?s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters * Why Google?s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters* * By Scott Aaronson* Google officially announced last week in the journal Nature that it achieved the milestone of ?quantum supremacy.? This phrase, coined by the physicist John Preskill in 2012, refers to the first use of a quantum computer to make a calculation much faster than we know how to do it with even the fastest supercomputers available. The calculation doesn?t need to be useful: much like the Wright Flyer in 1903, or Enrico Fermi?s nuclear chain reaction in 1942, it only needs to prove a point. Over the last decade, together with students and colleagues, I helped develop much of the theoretical underpinning for quantum supremacy experiments like Google?s. I reviewed Google?s paper before it was published. So the least I can do is to try to explain what it means. Until recently, every computer on the planet ? from a 1960s mainframe to your iPhone, and even inventions as superficially exotic as ?neuromorphic computers? and DNA computers ? has operated on the same rules. These were rules that Charles Babbage understood in the 1830s and that Alan Turing codified in the 1930s. Through the course of the computer revolution, all that has changed at the lowest level are the numbers: speed, amount of RAM and hard disk, number of parallel processors. But quantum computing is different. It?s the first computing paradigm since Turing that?s expected to change the fundamental scaling behavior of algorithms, making certain tasks feasible that had previously been exponentially hard. Of these, the most famous examples are simulating quantum physics and chemistry, and breaking much of the encryption that currently secures the internet. In my view, the Google demonstration was a critical milestone on the way to this vision. At a lab in Santa Barbara, Calif., a Google team led by John Martinis built a microchip called ?Sycamore,? which uses 53 loops of wire around which current can flow at two different energies, representing a 0 or a 1. The chip is placed into a dilution refrigerator the size of a closet, which cools the wires to a hundredth of a degree above absolute zero, causing them to superconduct. For a moment ? a few tens of millionths of a second ? this makes the energy levels behave as quantum bits or ?qubits,? entities that can be in so-called superpositions of the 0 and 1 states. This is the part that?s famously hard to explain. Many writers fall back on boilerplate that makes physicists howl in agony: ?imagine a qubit as just a bit that can be both 0 and 1 at the same time, exploring both possibilities simultaneously.? If I had room for the honest version, I?d tell you all about amplitudes, the central concept of quantum mechanics since Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schr?dinger and others discovered it in the 1920s. Here?s a short version: In everyday life, the probability of an event can range only from 0 percent to 100 percent (there?s a reason you never hear about a negative 30 percent chance of rain). But the building blocks of the world, like electrons and photons, obey different, alien rules of probability, involving numbers ? the amplitudes ? that can be positive, negative, or even complex (involving the square root of -1). Furthermore, if an event ? say, a photon hitting a certain spot on a screen ? could happen one way with positive amplitude and another way with negative amplitude, the two possibilities can cancel, so that the total amplitude is zero and the event never happens at all. This is ?quantum interference,? and is behind everything else you?ve ever heard about the weirdness of the quantum world. Now, a qubit is just a bit that has some amplitude for being 0 and some other amplitude for being 1. If you look at the qubit, you force it to decide, randomly, whether to ?collapse? to 0 or 1. But if you don?t look, the two amplitudes can undergo interference ? producing effects that depend on both amplitudes, and that you can?t explain by the qubit?s having been 0 or by its having been 1. Crucially, if you have, say, a thousand qubits, and they can interact (to form so-called ?entangled? states), the rules of quantum mechanics are unequivocal that you need an amplitude for every possible configuration of all thousand bits. That?s 2 to the 1,000 amplitudes, much more than the number of atoms in the observable universe. If you have a mere 53 qubits, as in Google?s Sycamore chip, that?s still 2 to the 53 amplitudes, or about 9 quadrillion. The goal, with Google?s quantum supremacy experiment, was to perform a contrived calculation involving 53 qubits that computer scientists could be as confident as possible really would take something like 9 quadrillion steps to simulate with a conventional computer. The qubits in Sycamore are laid out in a roughly rectangular grid, with each qubit able to interact with its neighbors. Control signals, sent by wire from classical computers outside the dilution refrigerator, tell each qubit how to behave, including which of its neighbors to interact with and when. In other words, the device is fully programmable ? that?s why it?s called a ?computer.? At the end, the qubits are all measured, yielding a random string of 53 bits. Whatever sequence of interactions was used to produce that string ? in the case of Google?s experiment, the interactions were simply picked at random ? you can then rerun the exact same sequence again, to sample another random 53-bit string in exactly the same way, and so on as often as desired. In its Nature paper, Google estimated that its sampling calculation ? the one that takes 3 minutes and 20 seconds on Sycamore ? would take 10,000 years for 100,000 conventional computers, running the fastest algorithms currently known. Indeed the task was so hard, Google said, that even directly verifying the full range of the results on classical computers was out of reach for its team. Thus, to check the quantum computer?s work in the hardest cases, Google relied on plausible extrapolations from easier cases. IBM, which has built its own 53-qubit processor, posted a rebuttal. The company estimated that it could simulate Google?s device in a mere 2.5 days, a millionfold improvement over Google?s 10,000 years. To do so, it said, it would only need to commandeer the Oak Ridge Summit, the largest supercomputer that currently exists on earth ? which IBM installed last year at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, filling an area the size of two basketball courts. (And which Google used for some of its simulations in verifying the Sycamore results.) Using this supercomputer?s eye-popping 250 petabytes of hard disk space, IBM says it could explicitly write down all 9 quadrillion of the amplitudes. Tellingly, not even IBM thinks the simulation would be especially easy ? nor, as of this writing, has IBM actually carried it out. (The Oak Ridge supercomputer isn?t just sitting around waiting for jobs.) We?re now in an era where, with heroic effort, the biggest supercomputers on earth can still maybe, almost simulate quantum computers doing their thing. But the very fact that the race is close today suggests that it won?t remain close for long. If Google?s chip had used 60 qubits rather than 53, then simulating its results with IBM?s approach would require 30 Oak Ridge supercomputers. With 70 qubits, it would require enough supercomputers to fill a city. And so on. Is there real science behind the spectacle of these two tech titans locking antlers? Is ?quantum supremacy,? divorced from practical applications, an important milestone at all? When should we expect those practical applications, anyway? Assuming Google has achieved quantum supremacy, what exactly has it proved ? and is it something anyone doubted in the first place? Let?s start with applications. A protocol that I came up with a couple years ago uses a sampling process, just like in Google?s quantum supremacy experiment, to generate random bits. While by itself that?s unimpressive, the key is that these bits can be demonstrated to be random even to a faraway skeptic, by using the telltale biases that come from quantum interference. Trusted random bits are needed for various cryptographic applications, such as proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies (environmentally friendlier alternatives to Bitcoin). Google is now working toward demonstrating my protocol; it bought the non-exclusive intellectual property rights last year. Other applications will almost certainly require more qubits, and of a higher quality ? things that Google, IBM and the other players are racing to build. One major milestone to watch for next will be the first use of small quantum computers to simulate the quantum physics of chemicals and materials in a way that?s actually useful to chemists and materials scientists. Simulating quantum mechanics ? that is, overcoming the exponential explosion of amplitudes in nature via a computer equipped with the same power ? was the original application that the physicist Richard Feynman envisioned when he proposed the idea of a quantum computer in the early 1980s. It?s still the most important application we know ? one that could aid in the design of everything from batteries and solar cells to fertilizers and lifesaving drugs. An even bigger milestone will be the first practical demonstration of quantum error correction ? a technology that, in theory, should be able to keep qubits alive for vastly longer amounts of time by cleverly encoding them across many physical qubits. Quantum computing researchers think that quantum error correction is what will ultimately let quantum computers scale beyond a couple hundred qubits, to the million- or billion-qubit machines that would fully realize Feynman?s dream. But this hasn?t been demonstrated yet, and no one knows when it will be. In the meantime, Google?s demonstration is a crucial proof of concept. Building a quantum computer is so hard that, ever since serious efforts began in the mid-1990s, some distinguished scientists have argued that the task would be impossible. Qubits, they said, will always prove too fragile to control. If quantum mechanics seems to predict that you can harness an exponential number of amplitudes for computation, then so much the worse for our present understanding of quantum mechanics. Google?s demonstration should give these skeptics pause. To all appearances, a 53-qubit device really was able to harness 9 quadrillion amplitudes for computation, surpassing (albeit for a special, useless task) all the supercomputers on earth. Quantum mechanics worked: an outcome that?s at once expected and mind-boggling, conservative and radical. The computer revolution was enabled, in large part, by a single invention: the transistor. Before transistors, we were stuck with failure-prone vacuum tubes. Yet vacuum tubes kind of, sort of worked: they translated abstract Boolean logic into electrical signals reliably enough to be useful. We don?t yet have the quantum computing version of the transistor ? that would be quantum error correction. Getting there will surely require immense engineering, and probably further insights as well. In the meantime, though, the significance of Google?s quantum supremacy demonstration is this: after a quarter century of effort, we are now, finally, in the early vacuum tube era of quantum computing. *Scott Aaronson is David J. Bruton Centennial Professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin, and the founding director of UT?s Quantum Information Center. He?s the author of ?Quantum Computing Since Democritus,? and blogs about quantum computing and other topics at Shtetl-Optimized.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Nov 2 07:06:10 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 08:06:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Why_Google=E2=80=99s_Quantum_Supremacy_Milestone?= =?utf-8?q?_Matters?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks John for sending the full text of Aaronson's post! I have written two posts on quantum supremacy. Trigger warning: Some people on the list could strongly dislike the ideas that I put forward: Is Quantum Supremacy a Step Toward Conscious Computers? https://thrivous.com/blogs/views/is-quantum-supremacy-a-step-toward-conscious-computers On quantum supremacy, AI, mind uploading, technological resurrection https://turingchurch.net/on-quantum-supremacy-ai-mind-uploading-technological-resurrection-1fccfe8819dd On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 10:15 PM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > Quantum Computer expert Scott Aaronson wrote a editorial in the October 30 2019 New York Times: > > Why Google?s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters > > Why Google?s Quantum Supremacy Milestone Matters > By Scott Aaronson > > Google officially announced last week in the journal Nature that it achieved the milestone of ?quantum supremacy.? This phrase, coined by the physicist John Preskill in 2012, refers to the first use of a quantum computer to make a calculation much faster than we know how to do it with even the fastest supercomputers available. The calculation doesn?t need to be useful: much like the Wright Flyer in 1903, or Enrico Fermi?s nuclear chain reaction in 1942, it only needs to prove a point. > > Over the last decade, together with students and colleagues, I helped develop much of the theoretical underpinning for quantum supremacy experiments like Google?s. I reviewed Google?s paper before it was published. So the least I can do is to try to explain what it means. > > Until recently, every computer on the planet ? from a 1960s mainframe to your iPhone, and even inventions as superficially exotic as ?neuromorphic computers? and DNA computers ? has operated on the same rules. These were rules that Charles Babbage understood in the 1830s and that Alan Turing codified in the 1930s. Through the course of the computer revolution, all that has changed at the lowest level are the numbers: speed, amount of RAM and hard disk, number of parallel processors. > > But quantum computing is different. It?s the first computing paradigm since Turing that?s expected to change the fundamental scaling behavior of algorithms, making certain tasks feasible that had previously been exponentially hard. Of these, the most famous examples are simulating quantum physics and chemistry, and breaking much of the encryption that currently secures the internet. > > In my view, the Google demonstration was a critical milestone on the way to this vision. At a lab in Santa Barbara, Calif., a Google team led by John Martinis built a microchip called ?Sycamore,? which uses 53 loops of wire around which current can flow at two different energies, representing a 0 or a 1. The chip is placed into a dilution refrigerator the size of a closet, which cools the wires to a hundredth of a degree above absolute zero, causing them to superconduct. For a moment ? a few tens of millionths of a second ? this makes the energy levels behave as quantum bits or ?qubits,? entities that can be in so-called superpositions of the 0 and 1 states. > > This is the part that?s famously hard to explain. Many writers fall back on boilerplate that makes physicists howl in agony: ?imagine a qubit as just a bit that can be both 0 and 1 at the same time, exploring both possibilities simultaneously.? If I had room for the honest version, I?d tell you all about amplitudes, the central concept of quantum mechanics since Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schr?dinger and others discovered it in the 1920s. > > Here?s a short version: In everyday life, the probability of an event can range only from 0 percent to 100 percent (there?s a reason you never hear about a negative 30 percent chance of rain). But the building blocks of the world, like electrons and photons, obey different, alien rules of probability, involving numbers ? the amplitudes ? that can be positive, negative, or even complex (involving the square root of -1). Furthermore, if an event ? say, a photon hitting a certain spot on a screen ? could happen one way with positive amplitude and another way with negative amplitude, the two possibilities can cancel, so that the total amplitude is zero and the event never happens at all. This is ?quantum interference,? and is behind everything else you?ve ever heard about the weirdness of the quantum world. > > Now, a qubit is just a bit that has some amplitude for being 0 and some other amplitude for being 1. If you look at the qubit, you force it to decide, randomly, whether to ?collapse? to 0 or 1. But if you don?t look, the two amplitudes can undergo interference ? producing effects that depend on both amplitudes, and that you can?t explain by the qubit?s having been 0 or by its having been 1. > > Crucially, if you have, say, a thousand qubits, and they can interact (to form so-called ?entangled? states), the rules of quantum mechanics are unequivocal that you need an amplitude for every possible configuration of all thousand bits. That?s 2 to the 1,000 amplitudes, much more than the number of atoms in the observable universe. If you have a mere 53 qubits, as in Google?s Sycamore chip, that?s still 2 to the 53 amplitudes, or about 9 quadrillion. > > The goal, with Google?s quantum supremacy experiment, was to perform a contrived calculation involving 53 qubits that computer scientists could be as confident as possible really would take something like 9 quadrillion steps to simulate with a conventional computer. The qubits in Sycamore are laid out in a roughly rectangular grid, with each qubit able to interact with its neighbors. Control signals, sent by wire from classical computers outside the dilution refrigerator, tell each qubit how to behave, including which of its neighbors to interact with and when. > > In other words, the device is fully programmable ? that?s why it?s called a ?computer.? At the end, the qubits are all measured, yielding a random string of 53 bits. Whatever sequence of interactions was used to produce that string ? in the case of Google?s experiment, the interactions were simply picked at random ? you can then rerun the exact same sequence again, to sample another random 53-bit string in exactly the same way, and so on as often as desired. > > In its Nature paper, Google estimated that its sampling calculation ? the one that takes 3 minutes and 20 seconds on Sycamore ? would take 10,000 years for 100,000 conventional computers, running the fastest algorithms currently known. Indeed the task was so hard, Google said, that even directly verifying the full range of the results on classical computers was out of reach for its team. Thus, to check the quantum computer?s work in the hardest cases, Google relied on plausible extrapolations from easier cases. > > IBM, which has built its own 53-qubit processor, posted a rebuttal. The company estimated that it could simulate Google?s device in a mere 2.5 days, a millionfold improvement over Google?s 10,000 years. To do so, it said, it would only need to commandeer the Oak Ridge Summit, the largest supercomputer that currently exists on earth ? which IBM installed last year at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, filling an area the size of two basketball courts. (And which Google used for some of its simulations in verifying the Sycamore results.) Using this supercomputer?s eye-popping 250 petabytes of hard disk space, IBM says it could explicitly write down all 9 quadrillion of the amplitudes. Tellingly, not even IBM thinks the simulation would be especially easy ? nor, as of this writing, has IBM actually carried it out. (The Oak Ridge supercomputer isn?t just sitting around waiting for jobs.) > > We?re now in an era where, with heroic effort, the biggest supercomputers on earth can still maybe, almost simulate quantum computers doing their thing. But the very fact that the race is close today suggests that it won?t remain close for long. If Google?s chip had used 60 qubits rather than 53, then simulating its results with IBM?s approach would require 30 Oak Ridge supercomputers. With 70 qubits, it would require enough supercomputers to fill a city. And so on. > > Is there real science behind the spectacle of these two tech titans locking antlers? Is ?quantum supremacy,? divorced from practical applications, an important milestone at all? When should we expect those practical applications, anyway? Assuming Google has achieved quantum supremacy, what exactly has it proved ? and is it something anyone doubted in the first place? > > Let?s start with applications. A protocol that I came up with a couple years ago uses a sampling process, just like in Google?s quantum supremacy experiment, to generate random bits. While by itself that?s unimpressive, the key is that these bits can be demonstrated to be random even to a faraway skeptic, by using the telltale biases that come from quantum interference. Trusted random bits are needed for various cryptographic applications, such as proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies (environmentally friendlier alternatives to Bitcoin). Google is now working toward demonstrating my protocol; it bought the non-exclusive intellectual property rights last year. > > Other applications will almost certainly require more qubits, and of a higher quality ? things that Google, IBM and the other players are racing to build. One major milestone to watch for next will be the first use of small quantum computers to simulate the quantum physics of chemicals and materials in a way that?s actually useful to chemists and materials scientists. Simulating quantum mechanics ? that is, overcoming the exponential explosion of amplitudes in nature via a computer equipped with the same power ? was the original application that the physicist Richard Feynman envisioned when he proposed the idea of a quantum computer in the early 1980s. It?s still the most important application we know ? one that could aid in the design of everything from batteries and solar cells to fertilizers and lifesaving drugs. > > An even bigger milestone will be the first practical demonstration of quantum error correction ? a technology that, in theory, should be able to keep qubits alive for vastly longer amounts of time by cleverly encoding them across many physical qubits. Quantum computing researchers think that quantum error correction is what will ultimately let quantum computers scale beyond a couple hundred qubits, to the million- or billion-qubit machines that would fully realize Feynman?s dream. But this hasn?t been demonstrated yet, and no one knows when it will be. > > In the meantime, Google?s demonstration is a crucial proof of concept. Building a quantum computer is so hard that, ever since serious efforts began in the mid-1990s, some distinguished scientists have argued that the task would be impossible. Qubits, they said, will always prove too fragile to control. If quantum mechanics seems to predict that you can harness an exponential number of amplitudes for computation, then so much the worse for our present understanding of quantum mechanics. > > Google?s demonstration should give these skeptics pause. To all appearances, a 53-qubit device really was able to harness 9 quadrillion amplitudes for computation, surpassing (albeit for a special, useless task) all the supercomputers on earth. Quantum mechanics worked: an outcome that?s at once expected and mind-boggling, conservative and radical. > > The computer revolution was enabled, in large part, by a single invention: the transistor. Before transistors, we were stuck with failure-prone vacuum tubes. Yet vacuum tubes kind of, sort of worked: they translated abstract Boolean logic into electrical signals reliably enough to be useful. We don?t yet have the quantum computing version of the transistor ? that would be quantum error correction. Getting there will surely require immense engineering, and probably further insights as well. In the meantime, though, the significance of Google?s quantum supremacy demonstration is this: after a quarter century of effort, we are now, finally, in the early vacuum tube era of quantum computing. > > Scott Aaronson is David J. Bruton Centennial Professor of Computer Science at the University of Texas at Austin, and the founding director of UT?s Quantum Information Center. He?s the author of ?Quantum Computing Since Democritus,? and blogs about quantum computing and other topics at Shtetl-Optimized. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 2 14:20:04 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 07:20:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] pondering humor again Message-ID: <001401d59188$a118e240$e34aa6c0$@rainier66.com> The discussion on humor and the possible origin of laughter has me pondering humor and why an idea is funny or not. Humor is so much more complicated it seems: so many triggers everywhere now. Consider these three short Mooscles ads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFrHNVeBbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQhHyHkCeBo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RcxqzjNW7g These ads crack me up. Which one is the funniest? Why? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 2 14:58:20 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 09:58:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] pondering humor again In-Reply-To: <001401d59188$a118e240$e34aa6c0$@rainier66.com> References: <001401d59188$a118e240$e34aa6c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Maybe I have not had enough coffee yet, but none of them are in the slightest bit funny. bill w On Sat, Nov 2, 2019 at 9:22 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > The discussion on humor and the possible origin of laughter has me > pondering humor and why an idea is funny or not. Humor is so much more > complicated it seems: so many triggers everywhere now. > > > > Consider these three short Mooscles ads: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjFrHNVeBbU > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQhHyHkCeBo > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RcxqzjNW7g > > > > These ads crack me up. Which one is the funniest? Why? > > > > 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Nov 3 23:37:55 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 15:37:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A step closer or another one for the dustbin? Message-ID: <68AD5C65-3D85-4780-9DA1-9257E23CCFD2@gmail.com> https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/10/30/a-breakthrough-in-american-energy-dominance-us-navy-patents-compact-fusion-reactor/ Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Nov 4 03:35:47 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:35:47 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A step closer or another one for the dustbin? In-Reply-To: <68AD5C65-3D85-4780-9DA1-9257E23CCFD2@gmail.com> References: <68AD5C65-3D85-4780-9DA1-9257E23CCFD2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Disinformation campaign - and apparently probably known to its intended targets. On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 3:40 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/10/30/a-breakthrough-in-american-energy-dominance-us-navy-patents-compact-fusion-reactor/ > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Mon Nov 4 14:19:16 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:19:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A step closer or another one for the dustbin? In-Reply-To: References: <68AD5C65-3D85-4780-9DA1-9257E23CCFD2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001701d5931a$d74cb920$85e62b60$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] A step closer or another one for the dustbin? >>?https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/10/30/a-breakthrough-in-american-energy-dominance-us-navy-patents-compact-fusion-reactor/ Regards, Dan >?Disinformation campaign - and apparently probably known to its intended targets. Agree. Containing plasma is not something likely to be discovered by some maverick inventor. The US, anyone can patent anything. The patent office doesn?t know and doesn?t care if your device works as advertised. They file the patent, give you a number and thank you for paying the fee. It is really no different than copyrighting a book: it doesn?t risk being rejected if it is stupid. You still get your copyright or patent. We can take half a glance at the sketches and see this isn?t going to contain plasma. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Nov 4 17:08:19 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:08:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] A step closer or another one for the dustbin? In-Reply-To: <001701d5931a$d74cb920$85e62b60$@rainier66.com> References: <68AD5C65-3D85-4780-9DA1-9257E23CCFD2@gmail.com> <001701d5931a$d74cb920$85e62b60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 6:19 AM wrote: > >>? > https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2019/10/30/a-breakthrough-in-american-energy-dominance-us-navy-patents-compact-fusion-reactor/ > > > >?Disinformation campaign - and apparently probably known to its intended > targets. > > Agree. Containing plasma is not something likely to be discovered by some > maverick inventor. > Rather, this is a guy with the full backing of the US Navy - and given his prior patents plus this, it's a disinformation campaign. We can take half a glance at the sketches and see this isn?t going to > contain plasma. > Due to the potential to leak between the containing elements, right? If they could get a strong enough magnetic field to keep the plasma out of the cracks, then maybe...but evidence suggests they haven't. (And even if this was legit, the patent is still "my calculations suggest that" rather than saying they had actually done it.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaronforcedesigns at gmail.com Mon Nov 4 23:56:58 2019 From: aaronforcedesigns at gmail.com (Aaron Force) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:56:58 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? Message-ID: Hello, My name is Aaron Force. I'm 48 years old and live near Seattle, Wa. A few years ago I unexpectedly underwent a spontaneous spiritual awakening (ego-transcendence) forever changing my understanding of myself, the universe, and my role within that universe. I have since developed an increasing fascination with all things future-oriented for humanity. However, my most intense passion centers around my own experience of ego-transcendence and what it could mean not only for other individuals but for our species as a whole. Because of the nature of the psychological construction of the ego to have a strong belief in separation and often putting a personal agenda of one's own protection and promotion before others or without general regard for consequences, I propose that the ego is ultimately the source of all mankind's problems. For instance, if we collectively had the higher consciousness that ego transcendence brings we would likely not be facing down the doomsday scenarios of the modern-day. While I think humanity must absolutely embrace technology I also believe it is imperative that we equally find advancement in our psychological capacities, something that The Principles of Extropy / Perpetual Progress seems to support. It appears to me that as technology increases to the point of potential existential risk we should have a commensurate degree of consciousness to have better understanding and wisdom in our actions and in any potential scenarios that might arise. In other words, it is not all just about increasing intellect. While our technological advances are currently spiraling upward it seems that humanity as a whole is socially and ecologically spiraling downward. The nature of the ego is that it is unconscious in its operation and always leads us to less order in life. This is plainly seen in how our blatant consumerism and drive for profits by producing single-use items or junk that deteriorates nearly immediately and must be disposed of has led us to our ecological crisis, for instance. It is in embracing higher consciousness as a species that we will evolve higher in all regards. I believe by the expanded consciousness that occurs outside of the limiting, *un*-conscious ego that we can not only avert disaster but find a balance of sustainability and eventually push through to a higher potential than we have ever known. I have loosely been describing this process to myself as *Transpersonal Extropianism*, that is, that we can find greater order, complexity, and energy through the consciousness we access by transcending the self (the ego). It's been my goal to make this a more public term for my mission ("to share the vision of TE and empower others by it, that by transcending the ego we can individually and collectively as a species avoid disaster, maintain balance and sustainability, and then begin to evolve higher than we have ever known and reach our ultimate Potential") and to begin sharing this vision to a greater degree. However, I want to be mindful of the fact that this term attempts to marry with yours (extropy.org) which has been far more established and is, of course, more technologically-oriented. It would be very helpful for me if I could bring this proposal up for discussion in a forthright and preemptive manner and receive some feedback. It is a cause I will be championing for many years into the future and wish to find a cooperative spirit rather than a conflicting one. Please advise if this choice of wording seems to muddy the waters with that which has been established or could find a place within the greater context. I can prepare and provide additional context for this proposal as necessary. Regards, -- AARON *FORCE* aaronforce.net @Aforce01 (Twitter) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 5 03:24:35 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 19:24:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> Welcome Aaron! spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Aaron Force via extropy-chat Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 3:57 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Cc: Aaron Force Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? Hello, My name is Aaron Force. I'm 48 years old and live near Seattle, Wa. A few years ago I unexpectedly underwent a spontaneous spiritual awakening (ego-transcendence) forever changing my understanding of myself, the universe, and my role within that universe. I have since developed an increasing fascination with all things future-oriented for humanity. However, my most intense passion centers around my own experience of ego-transcendence and what it could mean not only for other individuals but for our species as a whole. Because of the nature of the psychological construction of the ego to have a strong belief in separation and often putting a personal agenda of one's own protection and promotion before others or without general regard for consequences, I propose that the ego is ultimately the source of all mankind's problems. For instance, if we collectively had the higher consciousness that ego transcendence brings we would likely not be facing down the doomsday scenarios of the modern-day. While I think humanity must absolutely embrace technology I also believe it is imperative that we equally find advancement in our psychological capacities, something that The Principles of Extropy / Perpetual Progress seems to support. It appears to me that as technology increases to the point of potential existential risk we should have a commensurate degree of consciousness to have better understanding and wisdom in our actions and in any potential scenarios that might arise. In other words, it is not all just about increasing intellect. While our technological advances are currently spiraling upward it seems that humanity as a whole is socially and ecologically spiraling downward. The nature of the ego is that it is unconscious in its operation and always leads us to less order in life. This is plainly seen in how our blatant consumerism and drive for profits by producing single-use items or junk that deteriorates nearly immediately and must be disposed of has led us to our ecological crisis, for instance. It is in embracing higher consciousness as a species that we will evolve higher in all regards. I believe by the expanded consciousness that occurs outside of the limiting, un-conscious ego that we can not only avert disaster but find a balance of sustainability and eventually push through to a higher potential than we have ever known. I have loosely been describing this process to myself as Transpersonal Extropianism, that is, that we can find greater order, complexity, and energy through the consciousness we access by transcending the self (the ego). It's been my goal to make this a more public term for my mission ("to share the vision of TE and empower others by it, that by transcending the ego we can individually and collectively as a species avoid disaster, maintain balance and sustainability, and then begin to evolve higher than we have ever known and reach our ultimate Potential") and to begin sharing this vision to a greater degree. However, I want to be mindful of the fact that this term attempts to marry with yours (extropy.org ) which has been far more established and is, of course, more technologically-oriented. It would be very helpful for me if I could bring this proposal up for discussion in a forthright and preemptive manner and receive some feedback. It is a cause I will be championing for many years into the future and wish to find a cooperative spirit rather than a conflicting one. Please advise if this choice of wording seems to muddy the waters with that which has been established or could find a place within the greater context. I can prepare and provide additional context for this proposal as necessary. Regards, -- AARON FORCE aaronforce.net @Aforce01 (Twitter) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 03:58:33 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 22:58:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> References: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Aaron, You took the words out of my mouth! Unfortunately the ExI list, for all its positives, is not really a good spiritual resonance chamber. I've got the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the skeptic/atheist phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the nature of reality and consciousness. Some here seem ok with the tautological "consciousness is an illusion"--even though, since illusions need a subject to witness said illusion, this leaves us at the same place as before. Or "consciousness is what data feels like to be processed", without asking what is data, what is matter, what makes data incarnate in matter, why does consciousness exist at all, how does it relate to the fundamental forces which we have predictive maths for yet not even an iota of predictive maths regarding consciousness, &c. Kudos on reaching the point yourself. For me, I used a lot of psychedelics. And even then, I used to think they were merely tools for the intelligent, and was content to simply live in a mysterious universe without any explanation for being or consciousness. In any case, I welcome your attempts to bring these ideas here. At some point, the scientific community will budge, because a model that does not include or explain consciousness is a failure. Soon we will find the need to incorporate spiritual-type ideas into physics. -w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 04:46:14 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:46:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 7:17 PM Aaron Force via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Because of the nature of the psychological construction of the ego to have > a strong belief in separation and often putting a personal agenda of one's > own protection and promotion before others or without general regard for > consequences, I propose that the ego is ultimately the source of all > mankind's problems. > It also seems to be ultimately the source of all solutions to mankind's problems. For instance, if you had no ego (which you seem to be suggesting is a state to drive toward), then who would be making that proposal, and why would whoever it is bother doing so? > For instance, if we collectively had the higher consciousness that ego > transcendence brings we would likely not be facing down the doomsday > scenarios of the modern-day. > Yeah...here's where it breaks down. For the most part, those who bring on the doomsday scenarios can be seen as animals or forces of nature, from your point of view: they will never heed your advice, they will continue to act on their impulses, and you will never be able to reach them. At least, not as you are now. One solution space you can play a part in, is where they are already doing that and we are reacting to it - doing something about it, finding ways around it (including disarming their doomsdays), or something of that nature. Merely telling us to stop doing that - I'm pretty sure no one on this list has the ability to launch a nuclear missile, and the total consumerist behavior of everyone on this list is not even a drop in the bucket, so urging us to stop accomplishes nothing. Another thing we can do, is to find and pull the levers that do change others' behaviors. Help invent and commercialize new technologies. Find the upcoming doomsday scenarios that the masses don't yet have a lock on, and engineer things to prevent them before they start. Demonstrate new ways of being, in ways that the masses will recognize the benefits of - which includes using words they can understand. (Don't bother with mere lectures by themselves: however cheap and thus appealing those seem, lectures alone have proven to be failures. Lectures can be part of a solution, but if you start with them and do nothing else, you will delude yourself into thinking you're helping when you're really not, and waste your chance to change the world.) > While I think humanity must absolutely embrace technology I also believe > it is imperative that we equally find advancement in our psychological > capacities, something that The Principles of Extropy / Perpetual Progress > seems to support. It appears to me that as technology increases to the > point of potential existential risk we should have a commensurate degree of > consciousness to have better understanding and wisdom in our actions and in > any potential scenarios that might arise. > Technology being not just circuits and stuff, but new ways of doing things, would you say that better (faster, cheaper, and more effective) ways of achieving better consciousness would themselves be technology? I am aware of science fiction where the "miracle" was educational technology: better (again: faster, cheaper, and more effective, all at the same time) ways of learning the truth of the world and how to do things, and this was coded in everyday language that almost anyone on the street could understand easily. Thus, absolutely no mention of "consciousness", "ego", "transcendence", or any such terms. Perhaps you might try rephrasing what you wish to say with said restriction? Hopefully it is readily apparent why I believe that doing so would make your message far more effective, and why I believe that using terms that most people do not understand - without regard to what you are trying to communicate - is itself the reason why most people will aggressively ignore your message. In other words, I recommend this improvement to your linguistic technology. > This is plainly seen in how our blatant consumerism and drive for profits > by producing single-use items or junk that deteriorates nearly immediately > and must be disposed of has led us to our ecological crisis, for instance. > As the Lone Ranger's companion put it, "Who 'we', kemosabe?" I believe that no member of this list is an executive of or decision maker for a company that does more ecological harm than good. (Granted, I myself may be the closest exception to that, among everyone on this list at this time.) > However, I want to be mindful of the fact that this term attempts to marry > with yours (extropy.org) which has been far more established and is, of > course, more technologically-oriented. > Technology is, at its core, nothing more than finding better ways of doing things. These things can include how to think about the world, get along with people, do less harm to the environment, and so on. There seems no reason to believe that what you are doing is not an attempt to further certain types of technology, even if it is a type with less correlation to most to small classes of physical objects. Please advise if this choice of wording seems to muddy the waters > Yeah, it kind of does. In addition to the above recommendations, I would also strongly urge you to read up on Simple English - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia to start - and contemplate why it is seen as useful. Restating complex topics such as "ego" and "transcendence" into simple terms that most people can intuitively understand is a difficult project. Wise men from throughout the ages - Jesus, Buddha, and so on - have attempted this with varying degrees of success. There have been literally thousands of years of study as to what they did right, and how they are usually misread. This is not mere background to be shrugged at! Take heed of those who have gone before. Study their failures. Use what you learn from them, to do better. If you could be even merely mostly successful at that task, and prove it by getting lots of people (millions, preferably billions) to understand, that would be most worthy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aaronforcedesigns at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 04:05:55 2019 From: aaronforcedesigns at gmail.com (Aaron Force) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 20:05:55 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> References: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <9E8560EB-5046-44B3-ADC8-8BA569AE9415@gmail.com> Hello, Spike, thank you for reaching out, very much appreciated. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 4, 2019, at 7:24 PM, wrote: > > Welcome Aaron! > > spike > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Aaron Force via extropy-chat > Sent: Monday, November 4, 2019 3:57 PM > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Cc: Aaron Force > Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? > > Hello, > My name is Aaron Force. I'm 48 years old and live near Seattle, Wa. A few years ago I unexpectedly underwent a spontaneous spiritual awakening (ego-transcendence) forever changing my understanding of myself, the universe, and my role within that universe. I have since developed an increasing fascination with all things future-oriented for humanity. However, my most intense passion centers around my own experience of ego-transcendence and what it could mean not only for other individuals but for our species as a whole. > > Because of the nature of the psychological construction of the ego to have a strong belief in separation and often putting a personal agenda of one's own protection and promotion before others or without general regard for consequences, I propose that the ego is ultimately the source of all mankind's problems. For instance, if we collectively had the higher consciousness that ego transcendence brings we would likely not be facing down the doomsday scenarios of the modern-day. > > While I think humanity must absolutely embrace technology I also believe it is imperative that we equally find advancement in our psychological capacities, something that The Principles of Extropy / Perpetual Progress seems to support. It appears to me that as technology increases to the point of potential existential risk we should have a commensurate degree of consciousness to have better understanding and wisdom in our actions and in any potential scenarios that might arise. In other words, it is not all just about increasing intellect. > > While our technological advances are currently spiraling upward it seems that humanity as a whole is socially and ecologically spiraling downward. The nature of the ego is that it is unconscious in its operation and always leads us to less order in life. This is plainly seen in how our blatant consumerism and drive for profits by producing single-use items or junk that deteriorates nearly immediately and must be disposed of has led us to our ecological crisis, for instance. > > It is in embracing higher consciousness as a species that we will evolve higher in all regards. I believe by the expanded consciousness that occurs outside of the limiting, un-conscious ego that we can not only avert disaster but find a balance of sustainability and eventually push through to a higher potential than we have ever known. > > I have loosely been describing this process to myself as Transpersonal Extropianism, that is, that we can find greater order, complexity, and energy through the consciousness we access by transcending the self (the ego). It's been my goal to make this a more public term for my mission ("to share the vision of TE and empower others by it, that by transcending the ego we can individually and collectively as a species avoid disaster, maintain balance and sustainability, and then begin to evolve higher than we have ever known and reach our ultimate Potential") and to begin sharing this vision to a greater degree. However, I want to be mindful of the fact that this term attempts to marry with yours (extropy.org) which has been far more established and is, of course, more technologically-oriented. > > It would be very helpful for me if I could bring this proposal up for discussion in a forthright and preemptive manner and receive some feedback. It is a cause I will be championing for many years into the future and wish to find a cooperative spirit rather than a conflicting one. Please advise if this choice of wording seems to muddy the waters with that which has been established or could find a place within the greater context. > > I can prepare and provide additional context for this proposal as necessary. > > Regards, > > -- > AARON FORCE > aaronforce.net > @Aforce01 (Twitter) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 06:39:08 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:39:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: References: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Welcome Aaron! Will re "Unfortunately the ExI list, for all its positives, is not really a good spiritual resonance chamber. I've got the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the skeptic/atheist phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the nature of reality and consciousness." I am an old ExI list member (20 years and counting) who is NOT "stuck at the skeptic/atheist phase." Aaron, you might like my website and my book: https://turingchurch.net/ Aaron re "transcending the self (the ego)" This is often brought up when comparing Eastern and Western spiritual traditions, and in connection with philosophies like Open Individualism (check Daniel Kolak's book). I agree with many of your points, but transcending the self is not a viable option for most people, especially Westerners. I don't WANT to transcend the self! I am intellectually attracted to ideas like that the self/ego is part of the overall ground of being, that we are all little parts of One cosmic Mind, then after death we just merge back into the One, etc., but these ideas are not emotionally appealing. Also, I think the One is much more imaginative than that. Who's to say that BOTH the concept of One Mind and the concept of personal self as a relatively autonomous part of the One can't harmoniously coexist? I dedicate a lot of time to speculating about this, and I am persuaded that what the world needs at this moment is not abandoning the self for the One, but merging the two, in a fusion between Western and Eastern modes of thinking and feeling. On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 5:00 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat wrote: > > Aaron, > > You took the words out of my mouth! Unfortunately the ExI list, for all its positives, is not really a good spiritual resonance chamber. I've got the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the skeptic/atheist phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the nature of reality and consciousness. Some here seem ok with the tautological "consciousness is an illusion"--even though, since illusions need a subject to witness said illusion, this leaves us at the same place as before. Or "consciousness is what data feels like to be processed", without asking what is data, what is matter, what makes data incarnate in matter, why does consciousness exist at all, how does it relate to the fundamental forces which we have predictive maths for yet not even an iota of predictive maths regarding consciousness, &c. > > Kudos on reaching the point yourself. For me, I used a lot of psychedelics. And even then, I used to think they were merely tools for the intelligent, and was content to simply live in a mysterious universe without any explanation for being or consciousness. > > In any case, I welcome your attempts to bring these ideas here. At some point, the scientific community will budge, because a model that does not include or explain consciousness is a failure. Soon we will find the need to incorporate spiritual-type ideas into physics. > > -w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From sparge at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 12:44:03 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 07:44:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: References: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > You took the words out of my mouth! Unfortunately the ExI list, for all > its positives, is not really a good spiritual resonance chamber. I've got > the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the skeptic/atheist > phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the nature of reality > and consciousness. > That's pretty condescending. Is that a good tool of persuasion for those who've moved on to the next level? Seems to me that one could ponder the nature of reality and consciousness for a lifetime and have nothing to show for it: no breakthrough of understanding with practical applications. Do you think you can unlock these mysteries just by pondering them? -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 14:27:03 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:27:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: References: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Unfortunately the ExI list, for all its positives, is not really a good > spiritual resonance chamber. * > In my opinion the world already has far more spiritual resonance chambers than it needs. > * > I've got the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the > skeptic/atheist phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the > nature of reality and consciousness.* > People love to talk about the deep nature of consciousness but not about the deep nature of intelligence, I think that's because one is easy but the other is hard; any consciousness theory will work but not any old intelligence theory will. Before making any real progress on finding the deeper reality of consciousness (if there is one) somebody will first need to explain how the master algorithm that causes intelligence works, and if the philosophical rewards of finding that algorithm isn't enough it would also have practical value, it would at the very least make you the world's first trillionaire. > * > Some here seem ok with the tautological "consciousness is an > illusion"--even though, since illusions need a subject to witness said > illusion, this leaves us at the same place as before. * > That's why it's tautological, but tautologies do have one great thing in their favor, they're always true. > * > Or "consciousness is what data feels like to be processed", without > asking what is data, what is matter, * > I maintain that it is a ontological certitude that a chain of what or why questions either goes on forever or it doesn't and ends in a brute fact. People feel unsettled and unhappy with either possibility but nature is not compelled to be compatible with human desires. > *> what makes data incarnate in matter,* > Incomporial data can not be computed or even stored, for that you need a computer or a brain. There are an infinite number of mathematical statements but most of them, like 2+2=5, are logically contradictory, however matter that obeys the laws of physics will not allow logical contradictions and that's why only a material brain or computer can process information or behave intelligently. > *why does consciousness exist at all, * Darwin gave us the answer to that question in 1859. Evolution can't see consciousness any better than we can directly see consciousness in other people, and so it can not select for consciousness, but Evolution can select for intelligent behavior. I know for a fact that Evolution somehow managed to produce at least one conscious being (me) and probably many billions, therefore there can only be one conclusion. Consciousness must be a byproduct of intelligence, a evolutionary spandrel. Evolutionary Spandrel . > [... ] *how does it relate to the fundamental forces which we have predictive maths for yet not even an iota of predictive maths regarding consciousness, * That's just not true. I predict if I send a electrical current into your arm you will report a conscious feeling of pain. I also predict a change in your brain will correlate with a change in your consciousness and a change in your consciousness will correlate with a change in your brain. What more do you need to conclude there is a cause and effect relationship? *> At some point, the scientific community will budge, because a model that > does not include or explain consciousness is a failure. * > When people demand an explanation fir consciousness it's not even clear what exactly they are demanding. Would you be satisfied if I could prove that X causes consciousness or would you say X causes consciousness but X is not consciousness. And if after further study I then proven that X causes Y and Y caused consciousness would you be satisfied or point out the Y causes consciousness but Y is not consciousness? This sort of infinite regress is not restricted to consciousness it comes up every time we say something causes something, but it only seems to bother people when they talk about consciousness. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 15:24:25 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:24:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] quote Message-ID: Everybody talks about consciousness but nobody does anything about it. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 15:37:48 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:37:48 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: References: <003201d59388$8c94e060$a5bea120$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: When people demand an explanation for consciousness it's not even clear what exactly they are demanding john clark How can one find the cause of something if one cannot agree on how to measure it? Or define it? bill w On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:30 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *> Unfortunately the ExI list, for all its positives, is not really a good >> spiritual resonance chamber. * >> > > In my opinion the world already has far more spiritual resonance chambers > than it needs. > > >> * > I've got the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the >> skeptic/atheist phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the >> nature of reality and consciousness.* >> > > People love to talk about the deep nature of consciousness but not about > the deep nature of intelligence, I think that's because one is easy but the > other is hard; any consciousness theory will work but not any old > intelligence theory will. Before making any real progress on finding the > deeper reality of consciousness (if there is one) somebody will first need > to explain how the master algorithm that causes intelligence works, and if > the philosophical rewards of finding that algorithm isn't enough it would > also have practical value, it would at the very least make you the world's > first trillionaire. > > >> * > Some here seem ok with the tautological "consciousness is an >> illusion"--even though, since illusions need a subject to witness said >> illusion, this leaves us at the same place as before. * >> > > That's why it's tautological, but tautologies do have one great thing in > their favor, they're always true. > > >> * > Or "consciousness is what data feels like to be processed", without >> asking what is data, what is matter, * >> > > I maintain that it is a ontological certitude that a chain of what or why > questions either goes on forever or it doesn't and ends in a brute fact. > People feel unsettled and unhappy with either possibility but nature is not > compelled to be compatible with human desires. > > >> *> what makes data incarnate in matter,* >> > > Incomporial data can not be computed or even stored, for that you need a > computer or a brain. There are an infinite number of mathematical > statements but most of them, like 2+2=5, are logically contradictory, > however matter that obeys the laws of physics will not allow logical > contradictions and that's why only a material brain or computer can process > information or behave intelligently. > > > *why does consciousness exist at all, * > > > Darwin gave us the answer to that question in 1859. Evolution can't see consciousness > any better than we can directly see consciousness in other people, and so > it can not select for consciousness, but Evolution can select for > intelligent behavior. I know for a fact that Evolution somehow managed to > produce at least one conscious being (me) and probably many billions, > therefore there can only be one conclusion. Consciousness must be a > byproduct of intelligence, a evolutionary spandrel. > > Evolutionary Spandrel . > > > [... ] > *how does it relate to the fundamental forces which we have predictive > maths for yet not even an iota of predictive maths regarding > consciousness, * > > That's just not true. I predict if I send a electrical current into your > arm you will report a conscious feeling of pain. I also predict a change in > your brain will correlate with a change in your consciousness and a change > in your consciousness will correlate with a change in your brain. What more > do you need to conclude there is a cause and effect relationship? > > *> At some point, the scientific community will budge, because a model >> that does not include or explain consciousness is a failure. * >> > > When people demand an explanation fir consciousness it's not even clear > what exactly they are demanding. Would you be satisfied if I could prove > that X causes consciousness or would you say X causes consciousness but X > is not consciousness. And if after further study I then proven that X > causes Y and Y caused consciousness would you be satisfied or point out the > Y causes consciousness but Y is not consciousness? This sort of infinite > regress is not restricted to consciousness it comes up every time we say > something causes something, but it only seems to bother people when they > talk about consciousness. > > 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 Nov 5 18:02:35 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:02:35 -0600 Subject: [ExI] languages Message-ID: Some of you may have had to learn a foreign language or two in your college days. How has that worked out for you? (I took the Spanish exam. Of no use whatsoever in my fields.) Three years of Latin did enable me to figure out some words that came from Latin, but I never read any original in Latin. I think that the time has come where an educated person in any field has no use for any foreign language. How could we possibly compete with professional people whose job it is to translate for us? We are going to learn enough Greek to enjoy the Iliad in the original? Why? I don't know. Is anything in your field not translated for you? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Nov 5 23:42:38 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 18:42:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole? Message-ID: Due to the odd orbits of recently discovered Trans-Neptunian objects astronomers say that, unless it's just a very unlikely coincidence, there is probably a unknown planet between 5 and 15 earth masses orbiting the sun between 300 and 1000 times as distant from the sun as earth's orbit is, but other than this indirect evidence optical telescopes have been unable to find the slightest trace of it. A new paper suggests that the reason it's so hard to find is that the gravitational mass may not be a planet at all but is a Primordial Black Hole about the size of your fist, and says we need to look for it with a Gamma Ray Telescope not the optical sort. What if Planet 9 is a Primordial Black Hole? The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment has detected ultra short micro lezing events caused by gravitational masses in the same range in the distant Magellanic Cloud (a dwarf galaxy) that they assume were caused by free floating planets not connected to any star, but perhaps it was caused by something even more exotic like a Primordial Black Hole. Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment It's probably just a boring planet but maybe not, it would be GREAT if it turned out to be true, we could actually sent a robot spacecraft to explore a BlacK Hole, and if it used the sun grazing "Goddard orbit" to boost its speed it could get there in less than a decade. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 04:41:49 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 22:41:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] languages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <08C45382-CD92-4E8A-96D9-B5205B29B3C1@gmail.com> I have a hobby in Theology. A good bit of the interesting work is not available in English. But then you?d need to know: Greek, Patristic &/or Church Latin, French, Spanish, and German. The only one I can read with any reliability is Spanish but I lose more every year since I stopped taking classes. I?ve never learned the others. SR Ballard > On Nov 5, 2019, at 12:02 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Some of you may have had to learn a foreign language or two in your college days. How has that worked out for you? (I took the Spanish exam. Of no use whatsoever in my fields.) > > Three years of Latin did enable me to figure out some words that came from Latin, but I never read any original in Latin. > > I think that the time has come where an educated person in any field has no use for any foreign language. How could we possibly compete with professional people whose job it is to translate for us? We are going to learn enough Greek to enjoy the Iliad in the original? Why? > > I don't know. Is anything in your field not translated for 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Nov 6 08:01:50 2019 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 03:01:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] languages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 5, 2019, 13:04 William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I think that the time has come where an educated person in any field has > no use for any foreign language. How could we possibly compete with > professional people whose job it is to translate for us? We are going to > learn enough Greek to enjoy the Iliad in the original? Why? > Travel! Interpersonal communication! The way to someone's heart is through their language. The world is locked, and the keys are language. No matter how good a translator is, they can't make a deal for you as well as you could if you spoke the language. Some people might be swayed to work together because YOU have spent time mastering their language, translator be damned. There is no substitute for the genuine cultural curiousity displayed by one who learns a language, and native speakers respect this. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Nov 6 11:44:19 2019 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 06:44:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] languages In-Reply-To: <08C45382-CD92-4E8A-96D9-B5205B29B3C1@gmail.com> References: <08C45382-CD92-4E8A-96D9-B5205B29B3C1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Botany is another hoibby or profession in which the knowledge of Latin is useful. Regards, MB From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 00:44:08 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 18:44:08 -0600 Subject: [ExI] languages In-Reply-To: References: <08C45382-CD92-4E8A-96D9-B5205B29B3C1@gmail.com> Message-ID: > Botany is another hoibby or profession in which the knowledge of Latin is > useful. > > Regards, > MB > Sure it is, but any smart botany major will learn the terms. I am not > saying that Latin is not useful. I had three years of it. It has saved me > numerous trips to the dictionary. (but a lot of words have traveled a long > way from their literal Latin meaning) > But if I wanted to read Caesar in the original, I'd get a professional > translator. > 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Nov 7 01:22:31 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:22:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Mathematics Risque tale :) In-Reply-To: <43D63DB9-27F4-482F-AE95-785822FC5AEB@gmail.com> References: <43D63DB9-27F4-482F-AE95-785822FC5AEB@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:16 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I missed Will?s statement. My bad. But you do agree, I trust, that one > might find a joke inappropriate without wanting to ban it? > ### Absolutely, I am a judgmental but also a live-and-let-live kind of guy, so I find a lot of things inappropriate but few bannable. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Thu Nov 7 11:44:32 2019 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 06:44:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] languages In-Reply-To: References: <08C45382-CD92-4E8A-96D9-B5205B29B3C1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8cde080491a50559db4a5c32bd44b10a.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> On Wed, November 6, 2019 19:44, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >> But if I wanted to read Caesar in the original, I'd get a professional >> translator. >> You can do that, or you can get an old copy of Latin for Americans II and study it there. That's what I had in school (and quite possibly you had it also, we're of that age), and my brother borrowed it later as he wanted to read the original. I guess it's another "stretch your brain" exercise. Or you can do the Soduko puzzles. Kinda think I might prefer Latin for Americans II. ;) Regards, MB From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Nov 8 21:08:14 2019 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:08:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] One that didn't exactly work out. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Subject: A proposed way to replace natural oil with renewable oil To: Power Satellite Economics There are two recent news stories that started this line of thinking. First is the recent MIT release on a method to inexpensively capture CO2. https://news.mit.edu/2019/mit-engineers-develop-new-way-remove-carbon-dioxide-air-1025 The second is the story about the world's lowest PV bid. https://www.utilities-me.com/news/14081-dewa-receives-worlds-lowest-bid-of-usd-169-cents-per-kwh-for-900mw-5th-phase-of-the-mohammed-bin-rashid-al-maktoum One much larger is being planned. https://www.utilities-me.com/article-5367-japans-softbank-to-build-worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-in-saudi-arabia The first article says the capture method will work in the air. It takes about one GJ to capture a ton of CO2. A GJ is 278 kWh. At 1.69 cents per kWh, it will cost about $4.70 per ton of CO2. Or $17.23 per ton of carbon. 14 tons of oil has 12 tons of carbon at a cost of $206. Per bbl, the carbon would cost about $2.00 Oil is approximately CH2. Making hydrocarbons is scaled off the 34,000 bbl/day plant Sasol built 12 years ago in Qatar, it would take about 30,000 plants. 10,000 if the plant size was moved up to 100,000 bbl/day, but that may take too large a PV farm. CO2 + 3H2 yields CH2 + 2H2O 44 + 6 14 + 36 It may take reverse water gas shift to make the CO2 into CO. It is also possible that the CO2 might be electrolyzed to CO and O2 at a lower energy cost than making the extra hydrogen. https://dioxidematerials.com/technology/co2-electrolysis/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-gas_shift_reaction#Reverse_water-gas_shift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production At 50 MWh/ton, 6 tons of hydrogen would take 300 MWh. That makes 14 tons of oil or 21 MWh/ton of oil. At 7.33 bbl/ton the energy required for a bbl of oil is about 3 MWh. For an energy cost of $16.90/MWh, the hydrogen energy cost is very close to $50/bbl. Add $2/bbl for carbon, and ~$10/bbl for the capital cost of the F/T plant. Carbon-neutral synthetic oil (fuel actually) would cost ~$62/bbl, possibly less with more process optimization. For example, there is no reason for inverters, the PV DC output can directly power the electrolysis cells. This should reduce the cost of energy in hydrogen below 1.69 cents per kWh. The take-home is that in some places PV has gotten so inexpensive that it would be possible to make carbon-neutral synthetic hydrocarbons to replace natural oil for about the same price. The area needed for the PV is huge, 120% of Saudia Arabia or about 28% of the Sahara Desert. (check these numbers, 100 million bbls/day/34,000 bbl.day, ~30,000 plants at ~90 square km/plant.) 34,000 bbl per day is a rate of around 1466 bbl/hr. At 3 MWh/bbl for the hydrogen, the average input to the hydrogen cells would be 4.25 GW and the peak about 4 times higher. Sunlight comes down at a ~GW/km^2. Between the peak to average and the PV efficiency, a factor of about ~20 needs to need to be applied. This takes the PV area per plant up to 85-90 square km. It could be done over a number of years, but the cost is going to be a problem. If we built the plants at 3000 a year, that alone would be $3 T. I am not sure what the capital cost for the PV would be, probably 4-5 times the billion-dollar plant cost. I don't believe this option has been considered in the context of the global effects of CO2. After checking the math and finding I had the area off by a factor of ten, I am not so sure it is something that could be considered. The Sasol plants cost a billion dollars. 30,000 would be $3 T a year for ten years. Also, the area needed is so large that much black PV might cause serious weather problems. Sigh, it's not easy to make use of renewables, especially PV. As Mike Sneed notes, for the same power from power satellites the rectenna area would be around 1/5th. Keith From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 03:11:17 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 22:11:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I hate them Message-ID: I just skimmed through this hack job of an article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614690/polygenic-score-ivf-embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca/ and I am angry. This is an attack on Genomic Prediction (GP), a PGD company that offers polygenic scores for pre-implantation testing. I am so angry I have difficulties writing. The stupid sanctimonious jerks are "concerned" over what GP is doing, spew garbage about "eugenics", and bend over backwards not to admit the truth - that polygenic scores can help prevent death, disease and suffering. These pieces of arrogant filth do not care about human life and health. They refuse to think, they *feel* and their feelings are for them more important that human life and health. They are arrogant, even as their statements show muddled emotion-driven rationalizations, they claim to be experts. Their actions harm human life and health. I hate them. We have few duties to each other and one of the most fundamental ones is the duty of the parent to take care of his child. We, parents have the duty to give our children the best chances for a healthy, productive, and long life. We feed them, clothe them, teach them, love them. GP offers polygenic scores that let parents choose embryos that are least likely to grow up into sick, unhappy people with short lives. The test lets us give our children a bit more health, a bit longer life, a bit better life. The hacks who wrote the article are trying to deny us access to this technology. The article is deeply, revoltingly immoral. -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Schuyler Biotech PLLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 9 03:59:09 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 19:59:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] I hate them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004c01d596b2$0a8c4e50$1fa4eaf0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat > Subject: [ExI] I hate them I just skimmed through this hack job of an article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614690/polygenic-score-ivf-embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca/ Rafal, I am surprised China isn?t going after this tech like a pack of wolves after a flock of chickens. Perhaps they are. They have a billion people there who know they need to pay attention to reproduction, and many of them have only one shot at it. They could probably pressure enough people into taking DNA tests to get a good solid database going, then use that to prevent the known biggie diseases at least. The Chinese don?t seem to have a lot of heartburn about creating dozens of embryos and choosing one. In our world one can even argue that they aren?t killing anything: the remaining embryos can be frozen and stored cheaply indefinitely. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 04:23:18 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:23:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Captain Obvious strikes again? Message-ID: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/08/777187543/math-looks-the-same-in-the-brains-of-boys-and-girls-study-finds Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Nov 9 09:12:31 2019 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2019 09:12:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5DC682FF.4080209@zaiboc.net> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > wrote: You took the words out of my mouth! Unfortunately the ExI list, for all its positives, is not really a good spiritual resonance chamber. I've got the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the skeptic/atheist phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the nature of reality and consciousness. Speaking for myself, at least, I'd say that saying someone is 'stuck at the skeptic/atheist phase', while talking about the nature of reality (the wording "reality AND consciousness" is revealing, in my opinion, by the way) is rather like saying 'stuck at the wordprocessor stage' when talking about writing. Perhaps there will be better ways of writing things in the future, but going back to quill pens and parchment isn't one of them. Although that's not a very good analogy. At least we have a clear idea of what quill pens and parchment are, that just about everyone will agree on. Could even as few as ten different people give a consistent and clear definition of 'spirituality', in terms that don't fall into wooly ambiguity and superstition, and agree with each other? What's next? Are we going to hear the claim that ExI members are 'stuck' using the best mental tool we have discovered so far for investigating the nature of reality? The only one that has been demonstrated unequivocally to actually work? (I'm sure I don't have to name it to you guys). Of course the ExI list is not a good spiritual resonance chamber. Neither is it a good place for swapping tips on sympathetic magic, or discussing the finer details of crystal healing (although it can become a bit of a sounding-board for american politics, sometimes!). -- Ben Zaiboc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 11:17:51 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:17:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I hate them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:22 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> I just skimmed through this hack job of an article:* > > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614690/polygenic-score-ivf-embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca/ > > I've been saying for years that bioethicist were the lowest form of human life, from opposing golden rice that would prevent millions going blind to opposing gene drive to kill mosquitoes and stop malaria, according to ethicists the ethical thing to do somehow always ends up being the thing that causes the most pain and death. In the article the most shocking fact was that about 60% of embryos aren't even checked to make sure they had 46 chromosomes. John K Clark > > and I am angry. This is an attack on Genomic Prediction (GP), a PGD > company that offers polygenic scores for pre-implantation testing. I am so > angry I have difficulties writing. The stupid sanctimonious jerks are > "concerned" over what GP is doing, spew garbage about "eugenics", and bend > over backwards not to admit the truth - that polygenic scores can help > prevent death, disease and suffering. > > These pieces of arrogant filth do not care about human life and health. > They refuse to think, they *feel* and their feelings are for them more > important that human life and health. They are arrogant, even as their > statements show muddled emotion-driven rationalizations, they claim to be > experts. Their actions harm human life and health. > > I hate them. > > We have few duties to each other and one of the most fundamental ones is > the duty of the parent to take care of his child. We, parents have the duty > to give our children the best chances for a healthy, productive, and long > life. We feed them, clothe them, teach them, love them. > > GP offers polygenic scores that let parents choose embryos that are least > likely to grow up into sick, unhappy people with short lives. The test lets > us give our children a bit more health, a bit longer life, a bit better > life. The hacks who wrote the article are trying to deny us access to this > technology. The article is deeply, revoltingly immoral. > > -- > Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD > Schuyler Biotech PLLC > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rocket at earthlight.com Sat Nov 9 11:48:35 2019 From: rocket at earthlight.com (Re Rose) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 06:48:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 194, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Responding to----Message 3---John Clarke------- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 09:27:03 -0500---- "When people demand an explanation fir consciousness it's not even clear what exactly they are demanding. Would you be satisfied if I could prove that X causes consciousness or would you say X causes consciousness but X is not consciousness" Apologies if my response is in an unusual format, I never know how to respond to this list so I mostly lurk! Regarding consciousness, people seem to mostly look to magical or spiritual explanations for it, and its subjective nature lends to that interpretation. I think the key to understanding consciousness has been discussed by Jeff Hawkins in his book, "On Intelligence", and it works for me. Basically, each of us has a unique path through our slice of the world, and our sensors do not allow us to take in all the information of the environment. Due to physical limitations of data flow, time, and sensor capacity, we each obtain only one unique slice of the reality around us. This does not mean anything about reality itself, it means we necessarily have a limited access to the data of the world around us. Yet as an individual agent, it is our brain that must take this incomplete data and act on it, building our model of the world. This is the key to subjectivity. Since we each have different data-sets from which we formed our model of reality, we each have unique experiences. Since the brain *must* act on incomplete knowledge, at some point it must make decisions based on probabilities. This is the only way to operate for the lack of availability of a full description (i.e., a complete data-set) of the world around us. These decisions can not be autonomous (i.e., are not reflexive) but must be made by a decision, and decisions are made via thought. The thought process is internal and exclusive to the agent with the brain, based on its exclusive model of the world, in turn based on its limited and unique data-set. Since this type of thinking is neither instinctive nor reflexive, it must be handled by a new process which emerged to handle such judgements - we call that process consciousness. Therefore, this necessity of an individual agent needing to judge inconclusive situations based on a necessarily incomplete knowledge of the world is how consciousness emerged. My two cents, YMMV. I go back to lurking now - bye! ~regina -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbb386 at main.nc.us Sat Nov 9 13:22:22 2019 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:22:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] rocket! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <447015fc50dec3454b3f9275f25325fc.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Hey spike, were you there for this one? https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191109.html Those were good days, spike. Seems like there was a lot more enthusiasm, excitment, and hope then. I have a friend living down that way and she can see, from her front porch, various rockets going up. She's never tired of it. :) Regards, MB From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 14:09:46 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:09:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 194, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is every creature conscious? It would appear so based on this explanation. No creature receives a full and complete set of sensations from its environment. bill w On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 5:51 AM Re Rose via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Responding to----Message 3---John Clarke------- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 > 09:27:03 -0500---- > > "When people demand an explanation fir consciousness it's not even clear > what exactly they are demanding. Would you be satisfied if I could prove > that X causes consciousness or would you say X causes consciousness but X > is not consciousness" > > Apologies if my response is in an unusual format, I never know how to > respond to this list so I mostly lurk! > > Regarding consciousness, people seem to mostly look to magical or > spiritual explanations for it, and its subjective nature lends to that > interpretation. I think the key to understanding consciousness has been > discussed by Jeff Hawkins in his book, "On Intelligence", and it works for > me. > > Basically, each of us has a unique path through our slice of the world, > and our sensors do not allow us to take in all the information of the > environment. Due to physical limitations of data flow, time, and sensor > capacity, we each obtain only one unique slice of the reality around us. > This does not mean anything about reality itself, it means we necessarily > have a limited access to the data of the world around us. > > Yet as an individual agent, it is our brain that must take this incomplete > data and act on it, building our model of the world. This is the key to > subjectivity. Since we each have different data-sets from which we formed > our model of reality, we each have unique experiences. > > Since the brain *must* act on incomplete knowledge, at some point it must > make decisions based on probabilities. This is the only way to operate for > the lack of availability of a full description (i.e., a complete data-set) > of the world around us. > > These decisions can not be autonomous (i.e., are not reflexive) but must > be made by a decision, and decisions are made via thought. The thought > process is internal and exclusive to the agent with the brain, based on its > exclusive model of the world, in turn based on its limited and unique > data-set. Since this type of thinking is neither instinctive nor reflexive, > it must be handled by a new process which emerged to handle such judgements > - we call that process consciousness. > > Therefore, this necessity of an individual agent needing to judge > inconclusive situations based on a necessarily incomplete knowledge of the > world is how consciousness emerged. > > My two cents, YMMV. I go back to lurking now - bye! > > ~regina > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 14:14:03 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:14:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Transpersonal Extropianism? In-Reply-To: <5DC682FF.4080209@zaiboc.net> References: <5DC682FF.4080209@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: may be stuck at the skeptic/atheist phase, If there is a set of stages people got through that includes this one, I have not heard of it. Please supply the other stages. bill w On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 3:15 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:01 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> You took the words out of my mouth! Unfortunately the ExI list, for all >> its positives, is not really a good spiritual resonance chamber. I've got >> the idea that a lot of people here may be stuck at the skeptic/atheist >> phase, instead of pushing on to ask more deeply about the nature of reality >> and consciousness. >> > > > > Speaking for myself, at least, I'd say that saying someone is 'stuck at > the skeptic/atheist phase', while talking about the nature of reality (the > wording "reality AND consciousness" is revealing, in my opinion, by the > way) is rather like saying 'stuck at the wordprocessor stage' when talking > about writing. Perhaps there will be better ways of writing things in the > future, but going back to quill pens and parchment isn't one of them. > > Although that's not a very good analogy. At least we have a clear idea of > what quill pens and parchment are, that just about everyone will agree on. > Could even as few as ten different people give a consistent and clear > definition of 'spirituality', in terms that don't fall into wooly ambiguity > and superstition, and agree with each other? > > What's next? Are we going to hear the claim that ExI members are 'stuck' > using the best mental tool we have discovered so far for investigating the > nature of reality? The only one that has been demonstrated unequivocally to > actually work? (I'm sure I don't have to name it to you guys). > > Of course the ExI list is not a good spiritual resonance chamber. Neither > is it a good place for swapping tips on sympathetic magic, or discussing > the finer details of crystal healing (although it can become a bit of a > sounding-board for american politics, sometimes!). > > -- > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 14:20:47 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:20:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 194, Issue 3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 6:52 AM Re Rose via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> Responding to----Message 3---John Clarke-* Actually it's John Clark no e, I wish my name had a e because then I could claim to be the illegitimate son of Arthur C Clarke, but the best I can do is say I'm the son of Arthur E Clark (true). > * > I think the key to understanding consciousness has been discussed by > Jeff Hawkins in his book, "On Intelligence", and it works for me.* > I thought that was a good book too. *> Yet as an individual agent, it is our brain that must take this > incomplete data and act on it, building our model of the world. This is the > key to subjectivity.* > Yes and I am part of the world so my model of it must include a model of me, and you are part of the world too but there is a difference between me and you, I have much less information about you than about me hence the differentiation between self and non-self. From a Evolutionary viewpoint the single most important factor in the environment is the behavior of other people, so Evolution has a reason to make us smarter so we could make a model that was good enough to predict what they are likely to do even though we have incomplete data to work with. *> My two cents, YMMV. I go back to lurking now - bye!* > My two cents is you wrote a very interesting post and I hope you do more than lurk. Don't be shy! John K Clark (no e) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 14:33:17 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 08:33:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Captain Obvious strikes again? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: By obvious do you mean the 3 to 1 ratio of boys to girls at the very high level of math achievement? That and the rather large ratio of men to women in STEM occupations suggests to me that male hormones have something to do with it. At 8 years of age hormones are not that different. bill w On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:25 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/11/08/777187543/math-looks-the-same-in-the-brains-of-boys-and-girls-study-finds > > 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 spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 9 15:23:23 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 07:23:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] rocket! In-Reply-To: <447015fc50dec3454b3f9275f25325fc.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <447015fc50dec3454b3f9275f25325fc.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <003e01d59711$a0e15da0$e2a418e0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of MB via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] rocket! Hey spike, were you there for this one? https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191109.html Those were good days, spike. Seems like there was a lot more enthusiasm, excitment, and hope then. I have a friend living down that way and she can see, from her front porch, various rockets going up. She's never tired of it. :) Regards, MB _______________________________________________ Hi MB, I sure as heck was there for that one. That was the first full Saturn 5 launch, and it was at dawn and the moon was full. These are some of my earliest memories, for I had just turned 7. My father worked at the cape so he had a pass to get in and knew a place. After the fact I realized it must have been due south of the launch site because the glow of dawn was on my right and the moon was setting on my left as we faced the rocket. There were some things I didn't understand. It was hard to get scale on something like that. I heard the rocket stood as high as a tall building. But the tallest building I had ever seen was 5 floors, the tallest building Titusville had in those days. What is that, about 50 ft? The Saturn 5 was 360 ft. Seeing it from about 4 miles away one couldn't really scale it. That launch started an industry in Titusville. Yankees would come down in their Winnebagos and camp along the Indian River. There weren't many stores; we didn't even have a shopping mall in town. So a kid could sell souvenir trinkets and newspapers, young women could sell souvenir... eh... could sell... ummm... a kid could sell trinkets and newspapers, make a pile of money. That's how I bought all my first camping gear, profit from a single day of selling special edition newspapers. If I could find one of those vintage editions of the Star Advocate Special, I would be tempted to offer a deal for it. From what I recall, the editions that sold like hotcakes were the ones that were mostly about the astronauts and their wives (?) and had little to do with rocketry. This Nov 1967 launch had no astronauts aboard, but they didn't tell me that. I was told an ape was flying it. My 7 yr old self didn't know any better. When the politicians commented "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" we understood exactly what they meant. The moon launch was never primarily about science. There was only one scientist who ever went to the moon. spike From giulio at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 15:44:37 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:44:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] I hate them In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, this is really over the top. Sadly, this is one more symptom of the mental condition that plagues the Western zeitgeist. But Chins is there to do space, biotech, and all the other things that we are running away from. On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 12:20 PM John Clark via extropy-chat wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:22 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: > >> > I just skimmed through this hack job of an article: >> >> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614690/polygenic-score-ivf-embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca/ > > > I've been saying for years that bioethicist were the lowest form of human life, from opposing golden rice that would prevent millions going blind to opposing gene drive to kill mosquitoes and stop malaria, according to ethicists the ethical thing to do somehow always ends up being the thing that causes the most pain and death. In the article the most shocking fact was that about 60% of embryos aren't even checked to make sure they had 46 chromosomes. > > John K Clark > > > > >> >> >> and I am angry. This is an attack on Genomic Prediction (GP), a PGD company that offers polygenic scores for pre-implantation testing. I am so angry I have difficulties writing. The stupid sanctimonious jerks are "concerned" over what GP is doing, spew garbage about "eugenics", and bend over backwards not to admit the truth - that polygenic scores can help prevent death, disease and suffering. >> >> These pieces of arrogant filth do not care about human life and health. They refuse to think, they *feel* and their feelings are for them more important that human life and health. They are arrogant, even as their statements show muddled emotion-driven rationalizations, they claim to be experts. Their actions harm human life and health. >> >> I hate them. >> >> We have few duties to each other and one of the most fundamental ones is the duty of the parent to take care of his child. We, parents have the duty to give our children the best chances for a healthy, productive, and long life. We feed them, clothe them, teach them, love them. >> >> GP offers polygenic scores that let parents choose embryos that are least likely to grow up into sick, unhappy people with short lives. The test lets us give our children a bit more health, a bit longer life, a bit better life. The hacks who wrote the article are trying to deny us access to this technology. The article is deeply, revoltingly immoral. >> >> -- >> Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD >> Schuyler Biotech PLLC >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 9 15:48:45 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 07:48:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Captain Obvious strikes again? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004701d59715$2b82afb0$82880f10$@rainier66.com> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat ubject: Re: [ExI] Captain Obvious strikes again? By obvious do you mean the 3 to 1 ratio of boys to girls at the very high level of math achievement? That and the rather large ratio of men to women in STEM occupations suggests to me that male hormones have something to do with it. At 8 years of age hormones are not that different. bill w I am a volunteer coach for the geek stuff: STEM Fair, Science Olympiad and American Mathematics Competition. I am seeing a persistent signal: in 7th grade the gender ratio is about equal. 8th grade, more boys. High school, mostly boys, ratio tending toward ?. The serious STEM competitors: nearly all male. For reasons I don?t understand (but you might get, BillW, being trained in the discipline) about the time the hormones hit with fury, the girls trend to other matters besides science and math. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 17:07:22 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:07:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] rocket! In-Reply-To: <003e01d59711$a0e15da0$e2a418e0$@rainier66.com> References: <447015fc50dec3454b3f9275f25325fc.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <003e01d59711$a0e15da0$e2a418e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The moon launch was never primarily about science. There was only one scientist who ever went to the moon spike so the astronauts were the pretty boys? Great on camera? But the pretty boys did do some scientific experiments, did they not? Besides picking up rocks, that is. bill On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 9:26 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > MB > via extropy-chat > Subject: [ExI] rocket! > > Hey spike, were you there for this one? > > https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191109.html > > Those were good days, spike. Seems like there was a lot more enthusiasm, > excitment, and hope then. > > I have a friend living down that way and she can see, from her front porch, > various rockets going up. She's never tired of it. :) > > > Regards, > MB > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Hi MB, I sure as heck was there for that one. That was the first full > Saturn 5 launch, and it was at dawn and the moon was full. These are some > of my earliest memories, for I had just turned 7. My father worked at the > cape so he had a pass to get in and knew a place. After the fact I > realized > it must have been due south of the launch site because the glow of dawn was > on my right and the moon was setting on my left as we faced the rocket. > > There were some things I didn't understand. It was hard to get scale on > something like that. I heard the rocket stood as high as a tall building. > But the tallest building I had ever seen was 5 floors, the tallest building > Titusville had in those days. What is that, about 50 ft? The Saturn 5 was > 360 ft. Seeing it from about 4 miles away one couldn't really scale it. > > That launch started an industry in Titusville. Yankees would come down in > their Winnebagos and camp along the Indian River. There weren't many > stores; we didn't even have a shopping mall in town. So a kid could sell > souvenir trinkets and newspapers, young women could sell souvenir... eh... > could sell... ummm... a kid could sell trinkets and newspapers, make a pile > of money. That's how I bought all my first camping gear, profit from a > single day of selling special edition newspapers. > > If I could find one of those vintage editions of the Star Advocate Special, > I would be tempted to offer a deal for it. From what I recall, the > editions > that sold like hotcakes were the ones that were mostly about the astronauts > and their wives (?) and had little to do with rocketry. > > This Nov 1967 launch had no astronauts aboard, but they didn't tell me > that. > I was told an ape was flying it. My 7 yr old self didn't know any better. > When the politicians commented "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" we understood > exactly what they meant. The moon launch was never primarily about > science. > There was only one scientist who ever went to the moon. > > 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 Sat Nov 9 18:13:02 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 12:13:02 -0600 Subject: [ExI] oddities Message-ID: Why do we say 'the alarm went off' when it went on? If we said it CAME on, it would be fine. ambiguous (contronyms - I learned a new word!): dust cleave oversight left (went or remained) sanction want more? https://www.dailywritingtips.com/75-contronyms-words-with-contradictory-meanings/ I have to feel sorry for people trying to learn English. bill w bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Nov 9 19:10:15 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 11:10:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] rocket! In-Reply-To: References: <447015fc50dec3454b3f9275f25325fc.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> <003e01d59711$a0e15da0$e2a418e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003601d59731$51d93a00$f58bae00$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] rocket! The moon launch was never primarily about science. There was only one scientist who ever went to the moon spike so the astronauts were the pretty boys? Great on camera? But the pretty boys did do some scientific experiments, did they not? Besides picking up rocks, that is. Bill Not pretty boys, fighter pilots. Those early space missions were dangerous as all hell, and fighter pilots understood risk. They also understood how to improvise solutions in an emergency, which is why the failed Apollo 13 is so well known. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sen.otaku at gmail.com Sat Nov 9 23:41:00 2019 From: sen.otaku at gmail.com (SR Ballard) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 17:41:00 -0600 Subject: [ExI] I hate them In-Reply-To: <004c01d596b2$0a8c4e50$1fa4eaf0$@rainier66.com> References: <004c01d596b2$0a8c4e50$1fa4eaf0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: >many of them [chinese citizens] have only one shot at it In industrial areas there was always relaxation around the One Child Policy, for example daughters simply wouldn?t be registered for papers. ?It was introduced in 1979 (after a decade-long two-child policy), modified beginning in the mid 1980s to allow rural parents a second child if the first was a daughter, and then lasted three more decades before being eliminated at the end of 2015. The policy also allowed exceptions for some other groups, including ethnic minorities. Therefore, the term "one-child policy" is a misnomer, because for nearly 30 of the 36 years that it existed (1979?2015), about half of all parents in China were allowed to have a second child.? Now they have two shots. Just a bit of trivia. SR Ballard > On Nov 8, 2019, at 9:59 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat > > > Subject: [ExI] I hate them > > I just skimmed through this hack job of an article: > > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614690/polygenic-score-ivf-embryo-dna-tests-genomic-prediction-gattaca/ > > > Rafal, I am surprised China isn?t going after this tech like a pack of wolves after a flock of chickens. Perhaps they are. They have a billion people there who know they need to pay attention to reproduction, and many of them have only one shot at it. They could probably pressure enough people into taking DNA tests to get a good solid database going, then use that to prevent the known biggie diseases at least. > > The Chinese don?t seem to have a lot of heartburn about creating dozens of embryos and choosing one. In our world one can even argue that they aren?t killing anything: the remaining embryos can be frozen and stored cheaply indefinitely. > > spike > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Nov 10 16:33:23 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 16:33:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Is Bitcoin a betting game - not money? Message-ID: The Gamification of Bitcoin J.P. Koning ? November 7, 2019 Quote: What is now apparent is that bitcoin was never a monetary phenomenon. No, bitcoin is a new sort of financial betting game. It is a digital, global, highly-secure, and fairer version of the old-fashioned chain letter. The premise behind bitcoin-the-game is that the current wave of buyers must guess when (or if) a subsequent wave of buyers will emerge, this second next wave?s participation being contingent on when (or if) they believe a third wave of buyers to emerge. If they guess right, the early birds win at the expense of the late ones. ------------ BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 10 17:44:38 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 09:44:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is Bitcoin a betting game - not money? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001801d597ee$86771760$93654620$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Is Bitcoin a betting game - not money? The Gamification of Bitcoin J.P. Koning ? November 7, 2019 Quote: What is now apparent is that bitcoin was never a monetary phenomenon. No, bitcoin is a new sort of financial betting game. It is a digital, global, highly-secure, and fairer version of the old-fashioned chain letter. The premise behind bitcoin-the-game is that the current wave of buyers must guess when (or if) a subsequent wave of buyers will emerge, this second next wave?s participation being contingent on when (or if) they believe a third wave of buyers to emerge. If they guess right, the early birds win at the expense of the late ones. ------------ BillK _______________________________________________ Ja, BitCoin is a pyramid scheme of sorts, but not necessarily one which will crash. Consider tradeable baseball cards (any limited production-run collectable, but baseball cards work really well for this.) As soon as the guy's rookie year was over, they stopped production of that series of cards, so that series had a hard limit of supply and that card became collectable if the player did well for any reason, or became famous for anything not connected to baseball (consider Joe DiMaggio rookie cards, which have been traded for decades and still hold plenty of value.) BitCoin is in some ways analogous to baseball cards, for a reason which recently emerged. BitCoin is the ideal vehicle for bribing politicians. It can't be tracked, it can't even be taxed. A politician can be bought using rare valuable baseball cards or some other form of wealth which cannot be tracked. BitCoin makes the process convenient. Consider: the current situation where the US government is waging a bitter war against itself. This internal war has far-reaching consequences, perhaps the most notable of which is that the current president and all future presidents are functionally disabled from negotiating with foreign governments to which the US extends foreign aid. If a president is functionally disabled from negotiating with foreign governments to which the US extends foreign aid, congress is also functionally disabled from negotiating with any foreign government to which the US extends any foreign aid for the same reason: their motives are questioned (and are reasonably questionable.) Note carefully: this is a meta-observation. There is no need to even mention names of current, past or future US politicians, for this concept is universal: the power structure of the US government suddenly and fundamentally altered itself. Now, the US government has disabled itself from negotiating any direct or indirect benefit from foreign aid. It looks suspicious to even talk to the recipient government. If anyone is tempted to write a post which mentions a person, any event or any political party, I do urge you to jump at the opportunity to not do it. This concept is universal: the US government has disabled itself from negotiating benefit for foreign aid. No need to invoke parties or individuals. Ja? Thanks. OK then. BitCoin provides an ideal vehicle for bribery of politicians. Foreign aid is granted by the US House of Representatives. No US politician may negotiate anything in return without putting self in political peril. But all the politicians might accept payoffs for their votes without putting self in political peril, for BitCoin cannot be tracked. Ja? Consequence: all foreign aid must now be viewed with a renewed suspicion. Any representative who votes to give away US taxpayer money without conditions must be viewed with justifiable suspicion. Consequence: US representatives will now demonstrate a new and understandable reluctance to vote for any form of foreign aid. Consequence: BitCoin will undergo a renewed round of scrutiny and may well become illegal in the US. Consequence: BitCoin becomes even more valuable than it already is. Reasoning: the only traceable activity in BitCoin is BitCoin mining. If that activity is made illegal, then the amount of BitCoin mining goes down (theoretically) which reduces the supply of new BitCoins, which raises the value of BitCoin. BillK, you are one of the lads from England as I recall. Would not the same phenomenon apply to your parliament? Why or why not. Do spare us please from political discourse if anyone here is tempted to write such tiresome and repetitive screeds. The above commentary needs no politicians or parties, but is completely above that. Please ignore your own political address and stay up here with me: comment from an altitude of 10k meters. We are Extropians. spike From spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 10 17:49:49 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 09:49:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] 30th anniversary Message-ID: <001901d597ef$3fe5a450$bfb0ecf0$@rainier66.com> Where were you 30 yrs ago today? 9 November is the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Where were you on that day when you watched the sledgehammer party? What did you think? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Nov 10 18:11:00 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 10:11:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Is Bitcoin a betting game - not money? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > No, bitcoin is a new sort of financial betting game. > No more than stocks or most other investments are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Nov 10 18:13:01 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 12:13:01 -0600 Subject: [ExI] 30th anniversary In-Reply-To: <001901d597ef$3fe5a450$bfb0ecf0$@rainier66.com> References: <001901d597ef$3fe5a450$bfb0ecf0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I was just thankful no one was shot. And I was ecstatic that major political change took place in the hands of everyday people. I also wondered what had gone on behind the scenes in the East German Communist Party, because before that people attempting to escape were captured or shot. No doubt there's a big story there to be told. Maybe it has been. bill w On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 11:55 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > Where were you 30 yrs ago today? > > > > 9 November is the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Where > were you on that day when you watched the sledgehammer party? What did you > think? > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Nov 10 19:12:38 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 11:12:38 -0800 Subject: [ExI] 30th anniversary In-Reply-To: References: <001901d597ef$3fe5a450$bfb0ecf0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003b01d597fa$d1a5a650$74f0f2f0$@rainier66.com> >?On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] 30th anniversary I was just thankful no one was shot. And I was ecstatic that major political change took place in the hands of everyday people. I also wondered what had gone on behind the scenes in the East German Communist Party, because before that people attempting to escape were captured or shot. No doubt there's a big story there to be told. Maybe it has been. bill w BillW, you and I are old enough to have grown up in the Cold War. I remember the Duck and Cover drills, and particularly this bizarre cartoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60 I remember viewing it in elementary school and afterwards a teacher commenting that we are asked to do the drills but it is probably pointless because the bombs they have now are way bigger than the ones from when this film was created, and besides we are sitting only about 6 miles from ground zero, which is that launch site (she expounded while pointing east across the Indian River.) As I continued my education, I heard repeatedly that it would be Vietnam for now, then somewhere else later, then somewhere else, because the commies never ever give up: they just keep on coming, and you boys weill be drafted and some of you will be maimed and some will die in some pointless foreign proxy battle, as the Cold War continues until the H-Bombs destroy all of modern civilization and the survivors die of radioactive poisoning and starvation from the resulting nuclear winter now turn to page 137 in your book let?s go over the quadratic equation? We were raised with that: duck and cover drills, followed by explanations why you needn?t bother but make sure your homework is complete and on time. With that, is there any reason to wonder why our generation made such a poor showing? I remember well 30 yrs ago today. We watched the news in astonishment as guys whacked away at the Berlin Wall. People were dancing and cheering as each section of wall came down, a boom box was blasting out Simon And Garfunkel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pf_DntbQ8Y We dared hope on that day 30 yrs ago that world peace really had broken out. That, my young friends, was the focal point of the 1980s for my g-g-g-generation. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 15 05:59:45 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:59:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] xkcd today Message-ID: <001a01d59b79$e1cfd5a0$a56f80e0$@rainier66.com> https://www.xkcd.com/ Machine learning Captcha: To prove you're a human, click on all the photos that show places you would run for shelter during a robot uprising. .heeeeeeeheheheheheheheheeeeee. Randal Munroe is really on it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 09:23:56 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 04:23:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] xkcd today In-Reply-To: <001a01d59b79$e1cfd5a0$a56f80e0$@rainier66.com> References: <001a01d59b79$e1cfd5a0$a56f80e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Speaking of comics with a scientific flavor I like this one: Superdeterminism in comics John K Clark On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 1:03 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > https://www.xkcd.com/ > > > > Machine learning Captcha: > > > > To prove you?re a human, click on all the photos that show places you > would run for shelter during a robot uprising. > > > > > > > > > > > > ?heeeeeeeheheheheheheheheeeeee? > > > > Randal Munroe is really on it. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 15 12:57:04 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 04:57:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] xkcd today In-Reply-To: References: <001a01d59b79$e1cfd5a0$a56f80e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001c01d59bb4$2e315060$8a93f120$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 1:24 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] xkcd today Speaking of comics with a scientific flavor I like this one: Superdeterminism in comics John K Clark I am a fan. He proposes a solution to runaway AI: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/ai spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 15 13:35:24 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:35:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Recent Increases in Air Pollution: Evidence and Implications for Mortality Message-ID: To my mind fine particulate matter is a far more important air pollutant than greenhouse gasses that you hear so much about because it is a much more immediate problem. Fortunately fixing that problem is vastly easier than fixing the greenhouse problem, nevertheless the news on that front has not been encouraging. In the USA after decreasing by 24.2% from 2009 to 2016 there was a sudden increase in fine particulate matter of 5.5% from 2016 to 2018. In 2018 this increase is estimated to have caused 9,700 additional premature deaths in the USA alone. Can anybody think of a change in the political climate around 2016 that may have caused this increase? Recent Increases in Air Pollution: Evidence and Implications for Mortality John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Nov 18 15:39:25 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:39:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] kind of cool Message-ID: https://aeon.co/videos/our-biological-past-and-our-technological-future-play-out-on-a-single-human-face?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2c123b534e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_11_17_11_31&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-2c123b534e-68993993 bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 19 14:47:13 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 06:47:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] why tardigrades are indistructible Message-ID: <000c01d59ee8$3b4a1610$b1de4230$@rainier66.com> Cool article. This claims the tardigrade can preserve itself indefinitely because it can turn itself into glass. If so, this is really cool. I am already 60% of the way to being able to turn myself into glass: I am already good at making an ass of myself. Now I just figure out how to do the other two letters and I can survive hell. spike Scientists finally figure out why the water bear is nearly indestructible Freeze it, boil it, or expose it to radiation. The water bear shrugs it off. Now we know why. PHILIP PERRY 17 March, 2017 Medically accurate model of a tardigrade or water bear. The tardigrade, also known as the moss piglet or water bear, is a bizarre, microscopic creature that looks like something out of a Disney nightmare scene: strange but not particularly threatening. The pudgy, eight-legged, water-borne creature appears to be perpetually puckering. It's the farthest thing from what you'd expect an unstoppable organism to look like. Yet, water bears can withstand even the vacuum of space, as one experiment showed. A sort of microscopic Rasputin, tardigrades have be frozen, boiled, exposed to extreme doses of radiation, and remarkably still survive. How they do this has been a mystery to science, until now. Being a water-borne creature, scientists in this experiment examined how it survived desiccation, or being completely dried out. When it senses an oncoming dry period, the critter brings its head and limbs into its exoskeleton, making itself into a tiny ball. It'll stay that way, unmoving, until it's reintroduced into water. It's this amazing ability that piqued Thomas Boothby's interest. He's a researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Boothby told The New York Times, "They can remain like that in a dry state for years, even decades, and when you put them back in water, they revive within hours." After that, "They are running around again, they are eating, they are reproducing like nothing happened." Originally, it was thought that the water bear employed a sugar called trehalose to shield its cells from damage. Brine shrimp (sea monkeys) and nematode worms use this sugar to protect against desiccation, through a process called anhydrobiosis. Those organisms produce enough of the sugar to make it 20% of their body weight. TOP ARTICLES3/5READ MOREScientists create precursor to life inthermal vent experiment Not the water bear. Trehalose only takes up about 2% of its entire system, when it's in stasis. Though employing a sugar to preserve one's body sounds strange, the newly discovered process that the water bear goes through is even more bizarre. It turns itself into glass. In this study, tardigrades were placed into a drying-out chamber, which mimicked conditions the organisms would encounter in a disappearing pond. As the water bears underwent anhydrobiosis, scientists examined what genes were activated. These genes produced a certain protein, which they named tardigrade-specific intrinsically disordered proteins (TDPs). When the genes which produce TDPs were blocked, the water bears died. "If you take those genes and put them into organisms like bacteria and yeast, which normally do not have these proteins, they actually become much more desiccation-tolerant," Boothby said. It's when the drying out process begins that such genes are activated, flooding the water bear's system with the protective protein. The process occurs in much the same way as trehalose preserves sea monkeys, according to Boothby. This is an example of convergent evolution, when two unrelated organisms develop the same trait for survival. Usually, proteins are formed in orderly, 3D chains of amino acids. But TDPs operate differently, in a kind of random, somewhat disorganized manner. Dr. Boothby said, "It's a really interesting question about how a protein without a defined three-dimensional structure can actually carry out its function in a cell." Another question, is this protein used by any other organisms? When desiccation begins and TDP is activated, it engages a process known as vitrification. Boothby said, "The glass is coating the molecules inside of the tardigrade cells, keeping them intact." From there, it goes into a form of stasis until it detects water. When that occurs, the protein is dissolved into the liquid and the tardigrade is revived. There could be some practical uses to this discovery. For instance in medicine, vaccines often require refrigeration. But in the developing world, it isn't always available, which makes delivering vaccines to vulnerable, rural communities difficult. Dr. Boothby believes that we may be able to use TDP to sort of freeze-dry vaccines or medications, for easy storage and transport. What about putting humans in stasis for space travel or when they have terminal diseases, to await a cure? No word on that, yet. Scientists have years of research ahead of them already, just to understand the inner-workings of TDP. Some believe tardigrades may have "alien" DNA. To find out more, click here: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 15:25:49 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:25:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] why tardigrades are indistructible In-Reply-To: <000c01d59ee8$3b4a1610$b1de4230$@rainier66.com> References: <000c01d59ee8$3b4a1610$b1de4230$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Now I just figure out how to do the other two letters and I can survive hell. spike The sound of one hand clapping - cl Now just make that a g and you're all set bill w On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:50 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Cool article. This claims the tardigrade can preserve itself indefinitely > because it can turn itself into glass. > > > > If so, this is really cool. I am already 60% of the way to being able to > turn myself into glass: I am already good at making an ass of myself. Now > I just figure out how to do the other two letters and I can survive hell. > > > > spike > > > Scientists finally figure out why the water bear is nearly indestructible > > Freeze it, boil it, or expose it to radiation. The water bear shrugs it > off. Now we know why. > PHILIP PERRY > > 17 March, 2017 > > Medically accurate model of a tardigrade or water bear. > > The tardigrade > , > also known as the moss piglet or water bear, is a bizarre, microscopic > creature that looks like something out of a Disney nightmare scene: strange > but not particularly threatening. The pudgy, eight-legged, water-borne > creature appears to be perpetually puckering. It's the farthest thing from > what you'd expect an unstoppable organism to look like. > > Yet, water bears can withstand even the vacuum of space > , > as one experiment showed. A sort of microscopic Rasputin, tardigrades have > be frozen, boiled, exposed to extreme doses of radiation, and remarkably > still survive. How they do this has been a mystery to science, until now. > > Being a water-borne creature, scientists in this experiment examined how > it survived desiccation, or being completely dried out. When it senses an > oncoming dry period, the critter brings its head and limbs into its > exoskeleton, making itself into a tiny ball. It'll stay that way, unmoving, > until it's reintroduced into water. > > It's this amazing ability that piqued Thomas Boothby's interest. He's a > researcher at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Boothby told > *The* *New York Times*, ?They can remain like that in a dry state for > years, even decades, and when you put them back in water, they revive > within hours." After that, ?They are running around again, they are eating, > they are reproducing like nothing happened." > > Originally, it was thought that the water bear employed a sugar called > trehalose to shield its cells from damage. Brine shrimp (sea monkeys) and > nematode worms use this sugar to protect against desiccation, through a > process called anhydrobiosis. Those organisms produce enough of the sugar > to make it 20% of their body weight. > > TOP ARTICLES3/5READ MOREScientists create precursor to life inthermal > vent experiment > > > > Not the water bear. Trehalose only takes up about 2% of its entire system, > when it's in stasis. Though employing a sugar to preserve one's body sounds > strange, the newly discovered process that the water bear goes through is > even more bizarre. It turns itself into glass. > > In this study, tardigrades were placed into a drying-out chamber, which > mimicked conditions the organisms would encounter in a disappearing pond. > As the water bears underwent anhydrobiosis, scientists examined what genes > were activated. These genes produced a certain protein, which they named > tardigrade-specific intrinsically disordered proteins (TDPs). > > When the genes which produce TDPs were blocked, the water bears died. ?If > you take those genes and put them into organisms like bacteria and yeast, > which normally do not have these proteins, they actually become much more > desiccation-tolerant," Boothby said. > > It's when the drying out process begins that such genes are activated, > flooding the water bear's system with the protective protein. The process > occurs in much the same way as trehalose preserves sea monkeys, according > to Boothby. This is an example of convergent evolution > , when two > unrelated organisms develop the same trait for survival. > > Usually, proteins are formed in orderly, 3D chains of amino acids. But > TDPs operate differently, in a kind of random, somewhat disorganized > manner. Dr. Boothby said, ?It's a really interesting question about how a > protein without a defined three-dimensional structure can actually carry > out its function in a cell." Another question, is this protein used by any > other organisms? > > When desiccation begins and TDP is activated, it engages a process known > as vitrification . Boothby > said, ?The glass is coating the molecules inside of the tardigrade cells, > keeping them intact." From there, it goes into a form of stasis until it > detects water. When that occurs, the protein is dissolved into the liquid > and the tardigrade is revived. > > There could be some practical uses to this discovery. For instance in > medicine, vaccines often require refrigeration. But in the developing > world, it isn't always available, which makes delivering vaccines to > vulnerable, rural communities difficult. > > Dr. Boothby believes that we may be able to use TDP to sort of freeze-dry > vaccines or medications, for easy storage and transport. What about putting > humans in stasis for space travel or when they have terminal diseases, to > await a cure? No word on that, yet. Scientists have years of research ahead > of them already, just to understand the inner-workings of TDP. > > Some believe tardigrades may have ?alien" DNA. To find out more, click > here: > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 15:40:44 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:40:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer Message-ID: I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or supplements. bill w https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 15:47:36 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:47:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would suggest being careful about noticing any side effects from combining it with metformin as they both target AMPK. Not arguing against combining them, but just be aware that they hit many of the same molecular pathways. On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low > aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that > berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 > for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it > controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I > might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I > suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly > bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or > supplements. > > bill w > > > https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 16:04:22 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:04:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks! What side effects should I be looking for ? bill w On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I would suggest being careful about noticing any side effects from > combining it with metformin as they both target AMPK. Not arguing against > combining them, but just be aware that they hit many of the same molecular > pathways. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low >> aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that >> berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 >> for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it >> controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I >> might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I >> suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly >> bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or >> supplements. >> >> bill w >> >> >> https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 16:14:52 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:14:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Unfortunately, I'm going to be somewhat unhelpful as I'm not entirely sure. I already take metformin myself (along with rapamycin) for the potential healthspan improvements (I'm not prediabetic/diabetic). I've actually toyed with the idea of adding berberine also but am focused on other items in the overall cocktail right now and the costs overall start to add up. I don't think the combination would have any negative effect on pushing your blood sugar too low due to their mechanism of action (metformin amongst other things tamps down the creation of glucose by the liver (gluconeogenesis) but does not otherwise actually remove glucose from the blood, which makes it a very safe drug in that regard). Just in case, I would keep an eye on your fasting blood glucose though, and I guess just monitor how you're feeling overall. Sorry that I don't have something more quantitative to suggest. I would be very interested in hearing about your results though, and good luck with the continued fight against the prostate cancer. On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:06 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Thanks! What side effects should I be looking for ? bill w > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I would suggest being careful about noticing any side effects from >> combining it with metformin as they both target AMPK. Not arguing against >> combining them, but just be aware that they hit many of the same molecular >> pathways. >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low >>> aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that >>> berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 >>> for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it >>> controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I >>> might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I >>> suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly >>> bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or >>> supplements. >>> >>> bill w >>> >>> >>> https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Nov 19 16:15:34 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 08:15:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] why tardigrades are indistructible In-Reply-To: References: <000c01d59ee8$3b4a1610$b1de4230$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00b501d59ef4$92d83770$b888a650$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] why tardigrades are indistructible Now I just figure out how to do the other two letters and I can survive hell. spike The sound of one hand clapping - cl Now just make that a g and you're all set bill w I never figured out what was so Zen about that question. I can clap with one hand. The four fingers strike the palm, kinda makes a soft plip plip plip sound. I can even do both hands and the same time. That?s the sound of two hands clapping one-handed. Can?t do my feet that way. Or the sound of one hand against my knee. That sounds like the two hand version but stings more. Or the sound of one hand against someone else?s ass. That one stings even more, when she turns around and clobbers me or gives me a mace-face. Those really sting. Particularly the newer peppermint/arsenic flavored kind. Farm laborers go to a show, the performer sucks, one guy finds him funny, offers applause. Or how about that last scene from Fast Times at Ridgemont High when the strict history teacher visits the stoner surfer dude at his home, but imagine the scene where Spicoli comes to the door with his hair cleanly cut, in a suit and was just heading out for a job interview. Rigid old Mr. Hand would cheer him on. There are several perfectly good examples of one hand clapping, and two of them don?t sound much different from what one already knows. No big Zen thing at all. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 16:17:58 2019 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:17:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would add you could monitor your liver enzyme levels just to ensure you're not taxing the system in any way there. Blood tests for that specifically should be pretty cheap. Also meant to add that if you're not aware of it already, metformin can block your ability to ingest B12 so over time you can run into severe issues like neuropathy from it if you're not getting enough B12 to overcome this side effect. I would definitely supplement with a B complex or B12 on a regular basis and get your B12 levels checked biannually. The neuropathy will not be reversible so it is important that you don't run a B12 deficiency for an extended period of time. On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dylan Distasio wrote: > Unfortunately, I'm going to be somewhat unhelpful as I'm not entirely > sure. I already take metformin myself (along with rapamycin) for the > potential healthspan improvements (I'm not prediabetic/diabetic). I've > actually toyed with the idea of adding berberine also but am focused on > other items in the overall cocktail right now and the costs overall start > to add up. > > I don't think the combination would have any negative effect on pushing > your blood sugar too low due to their mechanism of action (metformin > amongst other things tamps down the creation of glucose by the liver > (gluconeogenesis) but does not otherwise actually remove glucose from the > blood, which makes it a very safe drug in that regard). > > Just in case, I would keep an eye on your fasting blood glucose though, > and I guess just monitor how you're feeling overall. Sorry that I don't > have something more quantitative to suggest. > > I would be very interested in hearing about your results though, and good > luck with the continued fight against the prostate cancer. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:06 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Thanks! What side effects should I be looking for ? bill w >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I would suggest being careful about noticing any side effects from >>> combining it with metformin as they both target AMPK. Not arguing against >>> combining them, but just be aware that they hit many of the same molecular >>> pathways. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low >>>> aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that >>>> berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 >>>> for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it >>>> controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I >>>> might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I >>>> suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly >>>> bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or >>>> supplements. >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 16:57:15 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:57:15 -0600 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks again. My testosterone is way below the point where I could get hormone shots if I did not have prostate cancer - I think that is what has been keeping me alive. And reducing my sex drive (but not to zero!). The berberine is for the prostate cancer, not blood sugar. I take a supplement which has 15K units of B12, so I think I'm safe there. Can't overdose. My blood sugar gets into the prediabetic zone - barely, at 5.7. It has never been over that since I have been taking metformin. I do have peripheral neuropathy but it is from being a heavy drinker for a few years in the 90s. I have not drunk alcohol since 1997. I take alpha lipoic acid and benfotiamine for the neuropathy and it knocks it mostly out. Google benfotiamine if you are not aware of it. I have quite a list if you are interested: for blood sugar, PSA, neuropathy, and osteoarthritis. Over 20 pills a day, but most are cheap or paid for by Medicare. More on berberine and metformin https://www.precisionnutrition.com/surprising-supplements bill w On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I would add you could monitor your liver enzyme levels just to ensure > you're not taxing the system in any way there. Blood tests for that > specifically should be pretty cheap. > > Also meant to add that if you're not aware of it already, metformin can > block your ability to ingest B12 so over time you can run into severe > issues like neuropathy from it if you're not getting enough B12 to overcome > this side effect. I would definitely supplement with a B complex or B12 on > a regular basis and get your B12 levels checked biannually. The neuropathy > will not be reversible so it is important that you don't run a B12 > deficiency for an extended period of time. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dylan Distasio > wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I'm going to be somewhat unhelpful as I'm not entirely >> sure. I already take metformin myself (along with rapamycin) for the >> potential healthspan improvements (I'm not prediabetic/diabetic). I've >> actually toyed with the idea of adding berberine also but am focused on >> other items in the overall cocktail right now and the costs overall start >> to add up. >> >> I don't think the combination would have any negative effect on pushing >> your blood sugar too low due to their mechanism of action (metformin >> amongst other things tamps down the creation of glucose by the liver >> (gluconeogenesis) but does not otherwise actually remove glucose from the >> blood, which makes it a very safe drug in that regard). >> >> Just in case, I would keep an eye on your fasting blood glucose though, >> and I guess just monitor how you're feeling overall. Sorry that I don't >> have something more quantitative to suggest. >> >> I would be very interested in hearing about your results though, and good >> luck with the continued fight against the prostate cancer. >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:06 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks! What side effects should I be looking for ? bill w >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I would suggest being careful about noticing any side effects from >>>> combining it with metformin as they both target AMPK. Not arguing against >>>> combining them, but just be aware that they hit many of the same molecular >>>> pathways. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low >>>>> aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that >>>>> berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 >>>>> for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it >>>>> controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I >>>>> might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I >>>>> suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly >>>>> bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or >>>>> supplements. >>>>> >>>>> bill w >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 19 22:05:30 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:05:30 -0600 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How are you getting rapamycin? Thanks! bill w On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I would add you could monitor your liver enzyme levels just to ensure > you're not taxing the system in any way there. Blood tests for that > specifically should be pretty cheap. > > Also meant to add that if you're not aware of it already, metformin can > block your ability to ingest B12 so over time you can run into severe > issues like neuropathy from it if you're not getting enough B12 to overcome > this side effect. I would definitely supplement with a B complex or B12 on > a regular basis and get your B12 levels checked biannually. The neuropathy > will not be reversible so it is important that you don't run a B12 > deficiency for an extended period of time. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:14 AM Dylan Distasio > wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I'm going to be somewhat unhelpful as I'm not entirely >> sure. I already take metformin myself (along with rapamycin) for the >> potential healthspan improvements (I'm not prediabetic/diabetic). I've >> actually toyed with the idea of adding berberine also but am focused on >> other items in the overall cocktail right now and the costs overall start >> to add up. >> >> I don't think the combination would have any negative effect on pushing >> your blood sugar too low due to their mechanism of action (metformin >> amongst other things tamps down the creation of glucose by the liver >> (gluconeogenesis) but does not otherwise actually remove glucose from the >> blood, which makes it a very safe drug in that regard). >> >> Just in case, I would keep an eye on your fasting blood glucose though, >> and I guess just monitor how you're feeling overall. Sorry that I don't >> have something more quantitative to suggest. >> >> I would be very interested in hearing about your results though, and good >> luck with the continued fight against the prostate cancer. >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:06 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Thanks! What side effects should I be looking for ? bill w >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I would suggest being careful about noticing any side effects from >>>> combining it with metformin as they both target AMPK. Not arguing against >>>> combining them, but just be aware that they hit many of the same molecular >>>> pathways. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low >>>>> aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that >>>>> berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 >>>>> for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it >>>>> controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I >>>>> might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I >>>>> suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly >>>>> bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or >>>>> supplements. >>>>> >>>>> bill w >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Wed Nov 20 16:14:28 2019 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 08:14:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Not_exactly_what_we=E2=80=99re_looking_for=2E=2E?= =?utf-8?q?=2E?= Message-ID: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2224004-exclusive-humans-placed-in-suspended-animation-for-the-first-time/ ... but maybe it?ll spark more interest. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books at: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Nov 20 18:17:46 2019 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:17:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Not_exactly_what_we=E2=80=99re_looking_for=2E=2E?= =?utf-8?q?=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's a step closer. From this aspect, they just need to extend the time "asleep" - and if we're fixed and awake in a year (having been riddled with cancer to the point that we're more of a project than a single operation) instead of a century, we're still alive. On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 8:17 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/2224004-exclusive-humans-placed-in-suspended-animation-for-the-first-time/ > > ... but maybe it?ll spark more interest. > > 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 giulio at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 15:05:25 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:05:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Getting to L5 in Our Lifetimes: Join the Terasem Twitter Colloquium Message-ID: Getting to L5 in Our Lifetimes: Join the Terasem Twitter Colloquium Join the Terasem Twitter Colloquium! On December 10th the Founders of Terasem will review tweets and comments. https://turingchurch.net/getting-to-l5-in-our-lifetimes-join-the-terasem-twitter-colloquium-af4ec90328f9 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 16:54:04 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 16:54:04 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species Message-ID: Were other humans the first victims of the sixth mass extinction? November 21, 2019 Quotes: Nine human species walked the Earth 300,000 years ago. Now there is just one. The Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, were stocky hunters adapted to Europe?s cold steppes. The related Denisovans inhabited Asia, while the more primitive Homo erectus lived in Indonesia, and Homo rhodesiensis in central Africa. Several short, small-brained species survived alongside them: Homo naledi in South Africa, Homo luzonensis in the Philippines, Homo floresiensis (?hobbits?) in Indonesia, and the mysterious Red Deer Cave People in China. Given how quickly we?re discovering new species, more are likely waiting to be found. By 10,000 years ago, they were all gone. ---- Today we look up at the stars and wonder if we?re alone in the universe. In fantasy and science fiction, we wonder what it might be like to meet other intelligent species, like us, but not us. It?s profoundly sad to think that we once did, and now, because of it, they?re gone. --------------------- BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 17:31:57 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:31:57 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: like us, but not us. bill k Interesting thought. I have no doubt that we can re-create them not too long into the future. What would be the point of that? Are we really that lonely? We already have over 7 billion people that are like us but not us. Do we want intelligent pets? Why create something that will have enough intelligence to know that it is inferior to us, or is that the point? I have wondered about the preoccupation with aliens in fiction. As I am a sci-fi fan I think I can conclude that most of the aliens we meet in novels are like us but dangerous. Wiping our planet clean of humans and the like. I argue that we can call the present time the Age of Xenophobia. So we really don't want what we think we want, esp. if they speak a different language, have a different religion, and so on. Interesting that we think we can tolerate those things in aliens but not in our fellow humans. bill w On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:58 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Were other humans the first victims of the sixth mass extinction? > November 21, 2019 > > < > https://theconversation.com/were-other-humans-the-first-victims-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction-126638 > > > > Quotes: > Nine human species walked the Earth 300,000 years ago. Now there is > just one. The Neanderthals, Homo neanderthalensis, were stocky hunters > adapted to Europe?s cold steppes. The related Denisovans inhabited > Asia, while the more primitive Homo erectus lived in Indonesia, and > Homo rhodesiensis in central Africa. > > Several short, small-brained species survived alongside them: Homo > naledi in South Africa, Homo luzonensis in the Philippines, Homo > floresiensis (?hobbits?) in Indonesia, and the mysterious Red Deer > Cave People in China. Given how quickly we?re discovering new species, > more are likely waiting to be found. > > By 10,000 years ago, they were all gone. > ---- > Today we look up at the stars and wonder if we?re alone in the > universe. In fantasy and science fiction, we wonder what it might be > like to meet other intelligent species, like us, but not us. It?s > profoundly sad to think that we once did, and now, because of it, > they?re gone. > --------------------- > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 17:55:16 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:55:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The most powerful Gamma Ray Burst ever found Message-ID: In today's issue of Nature it was announced that on January 15 2019 at 3:57:03 am EST the most powerful Gamma Ray Burst ever seen was detected, one photon of those Gamma Rays had as much energy as a trillion photons of visible light, that's about 10 times higher than the previous record. The burst is called GRB 190114C and it's 4.5 billion light years from the Earth. Teraelectronvolt emission from the ?-ray burst GRB 190114C John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Nov 21 19:39:07 2019 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:39:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have no doubt that we can re-create them not too long into the future. > It's pretty unlikely that we've got good DNA to work with. > What would be the point of that? > Well, we might learn something. But would it be ethical? Why create something that will have enough intelligence to know that it is > inferior to us, or is that the point? > I guess it depends upon how you define superiority. It could well be that we won out because we're the most aggressive and intolerant of competition. It's also conceivable that by more civilized measures, some of those species were superior to us. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Nov 22 06:25:51 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 01:25:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:58 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Today we look up at the stars and wonder if we?re alone in the > universe. In fantasy and science fiction, we wonder what it might be > like to meet other intelligent species, like us, but not us. It?s > profoundly sad to think that we once did, and now, because of it, > they?re gone. ### Our ancestors actually met these other intelligent species and, in their great wisdom, killed them (and probably ate them, too), rather than just wait to be killed (and eaten). There is a rule in ecology that the presence of two or more species in the same ecological niche is unstable and reliably ends with all but one of them becoming extinct. Our niche is created by our having general, social and technological intelligence, so long-term coexistence with other intelligent species is by this rule impossible. It's often advisable not to look too closely at how sausage and dominant species are made. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Mon Nov 25 10:59:38 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:59:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Beam Me (my mindclone) Up to L5! Terasem Colloquium Message-ID: Beam Me (my mindclone) Up to L5! Terasem Colloquium Getting to L5 In Our Lifetimes: Questions for the Terasem Colloquium, via Twitter. https://turingchurch.net/beam-me-my-mindclone-up-to-l5-terasem-colloquium-5af12fa988e0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Nov 26 23:02:56 2019 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:02:56 -0600 Subject: [ExI] prostate cancer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I have done a bit more research on berberine and am going to take metformin in the morning and berberine twice in the afternoon and evening. Taking all at one time not recommended. Will check blood sugars and let you know. I also found it on a list of 'gut healers' on Amazon. Also on a listd of pills for fat loss and dieting. If you have anything bad to say about Examine.com let me know. Just ran across it. You might not know of it. Not a commercial site. No links to buy pills etc. Also ran across SAM-e. If you know anything about that I would be glad to hear about it. bill w On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:18 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Unfortunately, I'm going to be somewhat unhelpful as I'm not entirely > sure. I already take metformin myself (along with rapamycin) for the > potential healthspan improvements (I'm not prediabetic/diabetic). I've > actually toyed with the idea of adding berberine also but am focused on > other items in the overall cocktail right now and the costs overall start > to add up. > > I don't think the combination would have any negative effect on pushing > your blood sugar too low due to their mechanism of action (metformin > amongst other things tamps down the creation of glucose by the liver > (gluconeogenesis) but does not otherwise actually remove glucose from the > blood, which makes it a very safe drug in that regard). > > Just in case, I would keep an eye on your fasting blood glucose though, > and I guess just monitor how you're feeling overall. Sorry that I don't > have something more quantitative to suggest. > > I would be very interested in hearing about your results though, and good > luck with the continued fight against the prostate cancer. > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 11:06 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Thanks! What side effects should I be looking for ? bill w >> >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dylan Distasio via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I would suggest being careful about noticing any side effects from >>> combining it with metformin as they both target AMPK. Not arguing against >>> combining them, but just be aware that they hit many of the same molecular >>> pathways. >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:42 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I have had it for over 20 years. A Gleason score of 4 means low >>>> aggressiveness. However, my PSA is going up. This article suggests that >>>> berberine can not only hinder prostate cancer but hold PSA steady. At $20 >>>> for three months I am adding it to my pile. Article also says that it >>>> controls blood sugar as well as metformin, which I also take. Hah! I >>>> might have to eat cake to keep my blood sugar up! Here is the link. I >>>> suggest you add People's Pharmacy to your email list and get their weekly >>>> bulletin. Highly educated people. They don't sell any drugs or >>>> supplements. >>>> >>>> bill w >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/articles/does-berberine-protect-against-prostate-cancer/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b59450b87d-MC_D_2019-11-19%26subscriber%3D1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&goal=0_7300006d3c-b59450b87d-214968749&mc_cid=b59450b87d&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Wed Nov 27 09:45:00 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 01:45:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: <1137497856.3884386.1574845671418@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1137497856.3884386.1574845671418@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20191127014500.Horde.n3q-5zOyWqxEyFfV5YuAhGG@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting Rafal Smigrodzki: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:58 AM BillK via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > Today we look up at the stars and wonder if we?re alone in the > universe. In fantasy and science fiction, we wonder what it might be > like to meet other intelligent species, like us, but not us. It?s > profoundly sad to think that we once did, and now, because of it, > they?re gone. > > ### Our ancestors actually met these other intelligent species and, > in their great wisdom, killed them (and probably ate them, too), > rather than just wait to be killed (and eaten). > There is a rule in ecology that the presence of two or more species > in the same ecological niche is unstable and reliably ends with all > but one of them becoming extinct. Our niche is created by our having > general, social and technological intelligence, so long-term > coexistence with other intelligent species is by this rule impossible. > It's often advisable not to look too closely at how sausage and > dominant species are made. You speak of Gause's law or the competitive exclusion principle. Co-existence amongst niche-dwellers is unlikely but not impossible. Plankton somehow do it. Maybe human culture will figure it out too. Especially since we have the most general niche of all. We have come a long way since when we ate those whose language we did not understand. Now people get upset at the thought of eating dogs or horses, let alone primates. At least in western democracies. Here is a recent article about the so-called "paradox of the plankton" https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/71/2/236/777680 Stuart LaForge From avant at sollegro.com Wed Nov 27 20:33:54 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change Message-ID: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> In his blog @ https://turingchurch.net/bergson-and-einstein-are-still-debating-the-nature-of-time-and-change-7fae5d92d235 Giulio Prisco writes: "David Deutsch noted that other times ?are just special cases of other universes.? So other times are real: Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change." ---- Indeed and their doppelgangers Ergson and Binstein also are no doubt somewhere arguing over renaissance poetry. Space is vast, If it is infinite, then so are we. Every permutation of matter and energy is manifested somewhere. So we all occur infinite many times in infinite many contexts. --- "Other physicists include decoherence in their own favorite interpretations of quantum mechanics and theories of quantum measurement with collapse." --- I don't see decoherence as being any more necessary than collapse in Everett's MWI. If one posits the existence of all possible Everett branches, all completely superdetermined, the result would be indistinguishable from what we observe. With all randomness attributable completely to our ignorance of which of the infinite Everett branches we reside in. This view also seems to corroborate the Wheeler-Dewitt equation which implies that the total energy and information of the multiverse as a whole is unchanging and therefore cannot be said to experience time at all. --- "Back to the questions. Is physical reality deterministic? Is physical reality reversible? Is information conserved, or do natural processes destroy and create information? These questions are, I think, far from settled. I suspect that both views might be valid, with subtly different conceptions of time and information." If MWI is true, then physical reality could be more than simply deterministic, it could be superdeterministic for each and every of your entangled non-local quantum doppelgangers. With each version of you predestined to make the very choices that lead to your observation of a given state of the universe, yourself included. Information is conserved between universes in the multiverse because information is by nature non-local. A single qubit (or even classical bit) can span multiple Everett branches and connect parts of the expanse that are not otherwise causally connected. That is a direct consequence of Bell's inequality violations. But most of the time it isn't. I think this is because the Bekenstein bound places an upper limit on the information density of space-time but no lower limit seems to exist. Therefore a one bit degree of freedom like spin-up or spin-down can span the observable universe and beyond. This non-locality of information is also necessitated by the Universal Wave-function itself as posited by Everett. It could not define the Everett branches if it could not transcend and connect all of (not just causally-connected) space-time. We are each a spectrum of information patterns, each different from one another by the sum total of the different choices we make out of all possible choices available to us. But all we ever see is the specific spectral line that the particular instance of ourselves that we we find ourselves to be makes. With regards to physical reality being reversible, I suspect that it is only reversible for photons (see delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment for details), while matter particles are stuck in unidirectional time as a consequence of having rest mass. Information seems to be conserved across Everett branches but not necessarily within them. So when one universe loses information, like when a hard drive crosses an event horizon or cosmological horizon, another universe gains it. Any way, though-provoking post, Giulio. Stuart LaForge From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Nov 28 09:34:31 2019 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:34:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: <20191127014500.Horde.n3q-5zOyWqxEyFfV5YuAhGG@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <1137497856.3884386.1574845671418@mail.yahoo.com> <20191127014500.Horde.n3q-5zOyWqxEyFfV5YuAhGG@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: > Co-existence amongst niche-dwellers is unlikely but not impossible. Plankton somehow do it. Plankton is the nearest example? If so, then it's not so near an example. But even the plankton case is quite dubious, I think. And hardly applicable to humans (hominids) even if it were true. On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:04 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting Rafal Smigrodzki: > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:58 AM BillK via extropy-chat > > wrote: > > > > > > Today we look up at the stars and wonder if we?re alone in the > > universe. In fantasy and science fiction, we wonder what it might be > > like to meet other intelligent species, like us, but not us. It?s > > profoundly sad to think that we once did, and now, because of it, > > they?re gone. > > > > ### Our ancestors actually met these other intelligent species and, > > in their great wisdom, killed them (and probably ate them, too), > > rather than just wait to be killed (and eaten). > > There is a rule in ecology that the presence of two or more species > > in the same ecological niche is unstable and reliably ends with all > > but one of them becoming extinct. Our niche is created by our having > > general, social and technological intelligence, so long-term > > coexistence with other intelligent species is by this rule impossible. > > It's often advisable not to look too closely at how sausage and > > dominant species are made. > > You speak of Gause's law or the competitive exclusion principle. > Co-existence amongst niche-dwellers is unlikely but not impossible. > Plankton somehow do it. Maybe human culture will figure it out too. > Especially since we have the most general niche of all. > > We have come a long way since when we ate those whose language we did > not understand. Now people get upset at the thought of eating dogs or > horses, let alone primates. At least in western democracies. Here is a > recent article about the so-called "paradox of the plankton" > > https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/71/2/236/777680 > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iph1954 at msn.com Thu Nov 28 10:07:55 2019 From: iph1954 at msn.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:07:55 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Fw: Fw: [2] Message-ID: ___ ___ _ https://tinyurl.com/sx8zup9 36 5870 80907 bdnhb ijei5l 7 vq gr86 5me6l lx danwbnj fl1bm fzym 5 l m0 wm62 nc4a oa 0j35q -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Nov 28 10:52:54 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:52:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Fw: Fw: [2] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apparently from Mike Treder email, but the link goes to a diet spam / phishing website. BillK On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 10:11, Mike via extropy-chat wrote: > > _ ____ ____ > > > > > > > > > > 720 312915 5 > > w 0nudo fnd4 av2f2 awq hcor2v 56br 25 zac > > yhdl2w 6c 64 dmsvst t9r iqnfn w0atb 0 > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Nov 28 11:04:18 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 06:04:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 11:59 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > * > Today we look up at the stars and wonder if we?re alone in the > universe. In fantasy and science fiction, we wonder what it might be like > to meet other intelligent species, like us, but not us. It?s profoundly sad > to think that we once did, and now, because of it, they?re gone.* > There is nothing unique about humans in that regard, when two species occupy the same environmental niche there is always conflict; but that's irrelevant as far as ET is concerned because we wouldn't be in the same environmental niche. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 07:49:24 2019 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 02:49:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 6:06 AM John Clark via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> > There is nothing unique about humans in that regard, when two species > occupy the same environmental niche there is always conflict; but that's > irrelevant as far as ET is concerned because we wouldn't be in the same > environmental niche. > > ### Well, I don't know, this might be complicated. I don't believe that there are any exceptions to Gause's law among non-technological species such of animals or plants. In the absence of interbreeding, two species using the same limited resource (food, space) and subject to the same limitations (e.g. susceptible to the same predators or pathogens) will always undergo random fluctuations in their relative population density. There is a positive feedback among sexual species that amplifies such fluctuations where the species that becomes less common in an area will rapidly become extinct as its members are less and less able to find mates. Among asexual species this feedback doesn't exist but random fluctuation eventually eliminate all competing lineages. It is very similar to the way neutral mutations disappear from a species - just need to wait long enough (under certain assumptions). I don't believe the plankton paradox is a paradox. The multitude of seemingly fungible plankton species (algae, bacteria) are massively outnumbered by viruses, and for each plankton species there are specific viruses that force a lower populations density on that species, allowing non-susceptible species to expand and in turn become limited by their own viruses. This means that each plankton species, although superficially similar to others, is living in its own niche, defined by both nutrients (which are common to many species) and by viruses and other predators (which are species-specific). Ancient out-species hominids come under Gause's law. Let's assume there are two hominid species incapable of efficient interbreeding in an area. Even if we assume they are both peaceful and never attack each other, they will limit each other's population density by consuming resources needed to survive. Even if we assume they are identical in their ability to use resources, they will have random fluctuations in population density. Members of the species that is more numerous will be able to find non-inbred mates easier, while the less numerous species will become slightly more inbred, thus less fit, and less able to use resources, and less common, and more inbred, and less fit.... until the bitter end. Of course, if you start with aggressive species that already have slight differences in their ability to use resources that process of elimination will be much faster. Furthermore, intelligence greatly expands a species' environmental niche. Humans have learned to exploit probably the most diverse range of environments, sources of foot, ways of attacking other creatures and defending from other creatures. Since the hominid niche is extremely wide (i.e. humans are the ultimate generalists), any hominid will exclude all other hominid species from an area, leaving no place for others to survive. That there are no surviving Neanderthals or Denisovans or H.floresiensis is not an indictment of our bloodthirsty ancestors, it's just the way of living things. But once we are talking about technological species, some bets are off. Game theory offers stable equilibria that are only accessible to agents capable of modeling each other's behavior and payoffs, and non-technological species cannot access such equilibria. I don't know enough about game theory applied to non-interbreeding intelligent technological species but my guess is that there could be ecological surprises, perhaps allowing stable coexistence of generalists. It's complicated. Maybe I'll offer some theorizing in another post. We don't even have to wait until we physically encounter ET to find out. General AI is soon coming to town, and things will never be the same. Happy Thanksgiving, intelligent agents of the list! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 14:02:31 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 09:02:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humans are a uniquely dangerous species In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 2:54 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: *> We don't even have to wait until we physically encounter ET to find out. > General AI is soon coming to town, and things will never be the same.* If we ever do meet ET he will almost certainly be an AI, but by then we will almost certainly be an AI too. *> Happy Thanksgiving, intelligent agents of the list!* I ate too much, but it is a scientific fact that food eaten during a public holiday with family contains no calories .... or at least that's what I kept telling myself. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 17:58:43 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 17:58:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 21:43, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat wrote: > > > I don't see decoherence as being any more necessary than collapse in > Everett's MWI. If one posits the existence of all possible Everett > branches, all completely superdetermined, the result would be > indistinguishable from what we observe. With all randomness > attributable completely to our ignorance of which of the infinite > Everett branches we reside in. This view also seems to corroborate the > Wheeler-Dewitt equation which implies that the total energy and > information of the multiverse as a whole is unchanging and therefore > cannot be said to experience time at all. > --- Quantum Bayesianism claims that MWI is meaningless. Quote: The Many Worlds Interpretation just boils down to this: Whenever a coin is tossed (or any process occurs) the world splits. But who would know the difference if that were not true? What does this vision have to do with any of the details of physics? ---------------------- Interesting? BillK From iph1954 at msn.com Fri Nov 29 20:18:22 2019 From: iph1954 at msn.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 11:18:22 -0900 Subject: [ExI] Kiss those diets good bye. Lose weight quick the easy way. Watch video! Message-ID: .. .. ... http://bit.do/fiLyB 516456 711008 9266731 7v3cc jl104j xw6w 2 3 zk lq l 7 8lpe2 gi ht0so pqiulu1 6jbgps 3ha tzq25 4hx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Nov 29 21:31:57 2019 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 13:31:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Kiss those diets good bye. Lose weight quick the easy way. Watch video! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101d5a6fc$6de94070$49bbc150$@rainier66.com> Anyone here know Mike Treder? I temporarily set his moderate flag until we can get a message to him that he has been hijacked. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Mike via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, November 29, 2019 12:18 PM To: Extropy Chat List Cc: Mike Subject: [ExI] Kiss those diets good bye. Lose weight quick the easy way. Watch video! .... .. .. http://bit.do/fiLyB 516456 711008 9266731 7v3cc jl104j xw6w 2 3 zk lq l 7 8lpe2 gi ht0so pqiulu1 6jbgps 3ha tzq25 4hx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Nov 29 21:52:23 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 21:52:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Kiss those diets good bye. Lose weight quick the easy way. Watch video! In-Reply-To: <002101d5a6fc$6de94070$49bbc150$@rainier66.com> References: <002101d5a6fc$6de94070$49bbc150$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 21:35, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Anyone here know Mike Treder? I temporarily set his moderate flag until we can get a message to him that he has been hijacked. > It may be an old email address that a spammer has spoofed. I emailed it and got the response -- Address not found Your message wasn't delivered to iph1954 at msn.com because the address couldn't be found or is unable to receive email. -------------- BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 00:32:05 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 00:32:05 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Kiss those diets good bye. Lose weight quick the easy way. Watch video! In-Reply-To: References: <002101d5a6fc$6de94070$49bbc150$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 21:52, BillK wrote: > > It may be an old email address that a spammer has spoofed. > I emailed it and got the response -- > > Address not found > Your message wasn't delivered to iph1954 at msn.com because the address > couldn't be found or is unable to receive email. > -------------- Another thought - it may be worthwhile to do a cleanup of the Exi subscriber mail list and remove invalid email addresses. BillK From avant at sollegro.com Sat Nov 30 04:53:45 2019 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 20:53:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Quoting BillK: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 21:43, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat > wrote: >> >> >> I don't see decoherence as being any more necessary than collapse in >> Everett's MWI. If one posits the existence of all possible Everett >> branches, all completely superdetermined, the result would be >> indistinguishable from what we observe. With all randomness >> attributable completely to our ignorance of which of the infinite >> Everett branches we reside in. This view also seems to corroborate the >> Wheeler-Dewitt equation which implies that the total energy and >> information of the multiverse as a whole is unchanging and therefore >> cannot be said to experience time at all. >> --- > > > > Quantum Bayesianism claims that MWI is meaningless. > Quote: > The Many Worlds Interpretation just boils down to this: Whenever a > coin is tossed (or any process occurs) the world splits. But who would > know the difference if that were not true? What does this vision have > to do with any of the details of physics? > ---------------------- To be honest, the notion that the universe splits asunder every time a coin is flipped, initially made me strongly dislike MWI because universe-splitting seemed a very unphysical process as bad as, if not worse than, wave-function collapse. But that is before I started investigating quantum gravity and wanting to merge QM and GR. Once GR comes into the picture and time becomes geometrized into a space-time manifold, one realizes that nothing splits or collapses. All the universes are all already there a piori. If one spatially clusters the universes by similarity to one another, the resulting model or structure of the multiverse looks like an infinite fractal tree, with uncountable Everett branches splitting off into further branch universes of increasing specificity until one gets down to the twigs; a picture reminiscent of Yggdrasil the World-Tree of Norse mythology. Any particular path from trunk to twig tracing out the unique history of a informationally-distinct universe. Perhaps this super-deterministic interpretation of MWI is sufficiently different from Everett's original vision so as to have its own name but calling it MWI suffices for me. The point is that Everett's model of QM lends itself well to the 3+1 geometry of general relativity. None of the so-called epistemic interpretations of QM like Copenhagen or QBism can boast this GR-coziness (hairy mathematical details like renormalization aside). The critic's allegation that classical versions of MWI could exist as there is nothing inherently quantum mechanical about the model, actually underscore the most valuable feature of MWI. And that is that a single visualization tool or interpretation of physics can bridge the quantum mechanical realm of subatomic processes with the inter-galactic realm of cosmological processes. In that regard, MWI is more a model of the physics of probabilistic phenomena on all scales rather than a narrow interpretation of QM. However, the Yggdrasil picture gained by clustering universes by informational similarity is a useful tool for concept visualization but the actual multiverse need not be so well organized. Quantum entanglement enables quantum systems to evolve unitarily no matter how far apart they are. And there seems to be more space in the multiverse than anything else. Because information seems to be non-local, a universe that is identical to ours except for one crucial detail (one atom out of place for example) need not be our nearest neighboring universe in space but instead lie countless trillions of Hubble radii away. Yet a single bit of Shannon information can nonetheless bridge that unfathomable gap. Just like there is only one number 3 that simultaneously exists wherever there are three of anything. > > > > Interesting? 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. For one thing, it places undue importance on consciousness by way of subjective observation of probabilities in the evolution of quantum systems. Somehow abstract probabilities must become concrete actualities in quantum systems. In such epistemic interpretations for example, the moon is a fuzzy mass of probability amplitudes until the moment you glance at it, then it snaps to attention as a real object in the present moment located precisely where you see it. Then when you look away, it relaxes once again into a fuzzy mess of abstract data. 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. 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. I suppose in the end, it boils down to matter of taste. Which intuition about the world do you cherish more? Realism or locality? For my part, I choose realism. If the present moment is real, then all of space is real. There is so much space out there that we don't know if it is infinite or not. Furthermore it is expanding due to dark energy with the farthest parts receding faster than light. That means that almost all of space is causally disconnected from us. That means that there is room out there for all possible pasts, presents, and futures to be real yet completely unobserved. If the number three can exist wherever threeness is manifest, Why cannot Einstein exist wherever Einsteiness is manifest? Stuart LaForge From giulio at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 06:59:17 2019 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 07:59:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: I think there are different interpretations of Everett's interpretation. A frequent reading of Everett is that the MWI IS super-deterministic: We are quantum mechanical systems like everything else, and if everything evolves deterministically in the multiverse, so do we. On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 6:55 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting BillK: > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 21:43, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> I don't see decoherence as being any more necessary than collapse in > >> Everett's MWI. If one posits the existence of all possible Everett > >> branches, all completely superdetermined, the result would be > >> indistinguishable from what we observe. With all randomness > >> attributable completely to our ignorance of which of the infinite > >> Everett branches we reside in. This view also seems to corroborate the > >> Wheeler-Dewitt equation which implies that the total energy and > >> information of the multiverse as a whole is unchanging and therefore > >> cannot be said to experience time at all. > >> --- > > > > > > > > Quantum Bayesianism claims that MWI is meaningless. > > Quote: > > The Many Worlds Interpretation just boils down to this: Whenever a > > coin is tossed (or any process occurs) the world splits. But who would > > know the difference if that were not true? What does this vision have > > to do with any of the details of physics? > > ---------------------- > > To be honest, the notion that the universe splits asunder every time a > coin is flipped, initially made me strongly dislike MWI because > universe-splitting seemed a very unphysical process as bad as, if not > worse than, wave-function collapse. But that is before I started > investigating quantum gravity and wanting to merge QM and GR. Once GR > comes into the picture and time becomes geometrized into a space-time > manifold, one realizes that nothing splits or collapses. All the > universes are all already there a piori. > > If one spatially clusters the universes by similarity to one another, > the resulting model or structure of the multiverse looks like an > infinite fractal tree, with uncountable Everett branches splitting off > into further branch universes of increasing specificity until one gets > down to the twigs; a picture reminiscent of Yggdrasil the World-Tree > of Norse mythology. Any particular path from trunk to twig tracing out > the unique history of a informationally-distinct universe. > > Perhaps this super-deterministic interpretation of MWI is sufficiently > different from Everett's original vision so as to have its own name > but calling it MWI suffices for me. The point is that Everett's model > of QM lends itself well to the 3+1 geometry of general relativity. > None of the so-called epistemic interpretations of QM like Copenhagen > or QBism can boast this GR-coziness (hairy mathematical details like > renormalization aside). > > The critic's allegation that classical versions of MWI could exist as > there is nothing inherently quantum mechanical about the model, > actually underscore the most valuable feature of MWI. And that is that > a single visualization tool or interpretation of physics can bridge > the quantum mechanical realm of subatomic processes with the > inter-galactic realm of cosmological processes. In that regard, MWI is > more a model of the physics of probabilistic phenomena on all scales > rather than a narrow interpretation of QM. > > However, the Yggdrasil picture gained by clustering universes by > informational similarity is a useful tool for concept visualization > but the actual multiverse need not be so well organized. Quantum > entanglement enables quantum systems to evolve unitarily no matter how > far apart they are. And there seems to be more space in the multiverse > than anything else. Because information seems to be non-local, a > universe that is identical to ours except for one crucial detail (one > atom out of place for example) need not be our nearest neighboring > universe in space but instead lie countless trillions of Hubble radii > away. > > Yet a single bit of Shannon information can nonetheless bridge that > unfathomable gap. Just like there is only one number 3 that > simultaneously exists wherever there are three of anything. > > > > > < > https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/quantum-physics-is-no-more-mysterious-than-crossing-the-street > > > > > > Interesting? > > 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. For > one thing, it places undue importance on consciousness by way of > subjective observation of probabilities in the evolution of quantum > systems. Somehow abstract probabilities must become concrete > actualities in quantum systems. > > In such epistemic interpretations for example, the moon is a fuzzy > mass of probability amplitudes until the moment you glance at it, then > it snaps to attention as a real object in the present moment located > precisely where you see it. Then when you look away, it relaxes once > again into a fuzzy mess of abstract data. > > 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. > > 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. > > I suppose in the end, it boils down to matter of taste. Which > intuition about the world do you cherish more? Realism or locality? > > For my part, I choose realism. If the present moment is real, then all > of space is real. There is so much space out there that we don't know > if it is infinite or not. Furthermore it is expanding due to dark > energy with the farthest parts receding faster than light. That means > that almost all of space is causally disconnected from us. That means > that there is room out there for all possible pasts, presents, and > futures to be real yet completely unobserved. > > If the number three can exist wherever threeness is manifest, Why > cannot Einstein exist wherever Einsteiness is manifest? > > Stuart LaForge > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 13:53:48 2019 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:53:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> References: <20191127123354.Horde.Bdf8QMLflbZNkPSH34rpyPC@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> <402967202.4482744.1575056382968@mail.yahoo.com> <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 05:56, Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat 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. For > one thing, it places undue importance on consciousness by way of > subjective observation of probabilities in the evolution of quantum > systems. Somehow abstract probabilities must become concrete > actualities in quantum systems. > > In such epistemic interpretations for example, the moon is a fuzzy > mass of probability amplitudes until the moment you glance at it, then > it snaps to attention as a real object in the present moment located > precisely where you see it. Then when you look away, it relaxes once > again into a fuzzy mess of abstract data. > > 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. > 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. > I suppose in the end, it boils down to matter of taste. Which > intuition about the world do you cherish more? Realism or locality? > > For my part, I choose realism. If the present moment is real, then all > of space is real. There is so much space out there that we don't know > if it is infinite or not. Furthermore it is expanding due to dark > energy with the farthest parts receding faster than light. That means > that almost all of space is causally disconnected from us. That means > that there is room out there for all possible pasts, presents, and > futures to be real yet completely unobserved. > > If the number three can exist wherever threeness is manifest, Why > cannot Einstein exist wherever Einsteiness is manifest? > 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. An infinite universe doesn't necessarily mean that every possible past, present and future exists somewhere. Some infinities are bigger than others! BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Nov 30 16:34:09 2019 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 11:34:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Bergson and Einstein are still debating the nature of time and change In-Reply-To: <20191129205345.Horde.CAyae19XHcgDiopSrPyH91d@secure199.inmotionhosting.com> 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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: