From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 00:10:41 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 19:10:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Thursday Fun Day in the UK In-Reply-To: <000601d84557$d581bb30$80853190$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d84557$d581bb30$80853190$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: And such an easy fix for the overloading. bill w On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 6:35 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat > Subject: [ExI] Thursday Fun Day in the UK > > >...It's been a funny old day here in the UK. > On Friday a big electricity price increase will apply and customers were > told to supply meter readings on Thursday to make sure correct charges were > applied to their accounts. > > >...Guess what happened????? > > >...The websites of all the power companies promptly fell over as the whole > of the UK tried to connect and submit their meter readings. What a > surprise! :) Who would have thought that might happen! > Isn't technology wonderful! > > < > https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/18130141/ofgem-issues-bill-advice-sites-cras > h/ > > > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > > > > Hey, WE invented that! We Yanks did it first, me lad. > > A few years ago the USA attempted to overhaul our medical insurance system. > The government set up a website. Roll-out day, it crashed. Too many > attempted to log on. Unforeseeable I suppose. Black swan event having all > those people try to log on the very first day. > > 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 Apr 1 18:56:30 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 11:56:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] hartman spoiled my fun, plus nova Message-ID: <004301d845fa$33ab3b30$9b01b190$@rainier66.com> After our discussion of psychedelics here, I Googled on it and found the generic term is "acid." Ah, so that is what that guy at Woodstock meant about some bad acid going around. Now I am hip to that term. I have long heard that the placebo effect is powerful, so I had an idea: I would eat some placebo "acid" and see if I got all psychedelic. I have acid here, a perfectly safe kind: boric. It is the active ingredient in eyedrops. So I put a drop of it on a sugar cube, then gave myself self-hypnosis to forget that this was boric acid rather than the other "bad" acid (I have no idea where one would get such a substance (and do not wish to find out (I suffer a deplorable lack of curiosity on that.))) OK so the self-hypnosis worked: I couldn't remember what it was I hypnotized myself to forget. So I figured that would give the placebo effect a fighting chance. It worked! I was getting all trippy, colorful room, incense, guru softly plucking at a sarod, naked nymph feeding me honeydew, the works. Cool! Well... Problem. The placebo effect is real but only kinda works. My trip didn't stay pleasant and trippy. I suffered a bad trip. Her fully-clothed husband showed up. And... he was Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket! Naturally he was most annoyed. He ripped my head off and shit down my throat. When I regained consciousness, Mrs. Hartman and her clothing were gone, the guru was stuffed into the toilet so deep only his feet were sticking out. I saw myself groping around looking for me, perhaps hoping to put me in the freezer until Max and Alcor friends showed up. I couldn't find me of course because my eyes were over here. Calling out to me was similarly useless because my ears were similarly dislocated, but calling out was impossible anyway because I had dislocated lungs. Fortunately the drug wore off, and my chess ability returned to normal. OK then, never mind that. Fun and games, but this next part is not. I seriously debated whether to put this link in the same post as the silliness above, and eventually decided to do it. You know me: I write stuff like that placebo trip nonsense. But this Nova program is not silliness, it is damn serious stuff, so if you choose to view it, do pretend it isn't in the same post with the angry sergeant spoiling my pleasant meal with Mrs. Hartman. This Nova definitely does spoil my fun, because I have family all over West Virginia coal country and I do have relatives who have suffered addictions, specifically in the area of Welch, which they talk about a lot in this grim program. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ-qX3yrxC0 spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 1 21:01:59 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2022 16:01:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book Message-ID: Has anyone read Threshold by David Palmer? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 11:03:09 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 12:03:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? Message-ID: MIRI announces new "Death With Dignity" strategy by Eliezer Yudkowsky 2nd Apr 2022 (The Machine Intelligence Research Institute, is a non-profit research organization devoted to reducing existential risk from unfriendly artificial intelligence and understanding problems related to friendly artificial intelligence. Eliezer Yudkowsky was one of the early founders and continues to work there as a Research Fellow). (This article doesn't appear to be an April Fool's joke. Eliezer seems to have reached the conclusion that AGI development is going to destroy humanity. BillK) Quotes: It's obvious at this point that humanity isn't going to solve the alignment problem, or even try very hard, or even go out with much of a fight. Since survival is unattainable, we should shift the focus of our efforts to helping humanity die with slightly more dignity. It is more dignified for humanity - a better look on our tombstone - if we die after the management of the AGI project was heroically warned of the dangers but came up with totally reasonable reasons to go ahead anyways. But compared to being part of a species that walks forward completely oblivious into the whirling propeller blades, with nobody having seen it at all or made any effort to stop it, it is dying with a little more dignity, if anyone knew at all. You can feel a little incrementally prouder to have died as part of a species like that, if maybe not proud in absolute terms. -------------- BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 2 13:54:49 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 06:54:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Sent: Saturday, 2 April, 2022 4:03 AM To: Extropy Chat Cc: BillK Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? MIRI announces new "Death With Dignity" strategy by Eliezer Yudkowsky 2nd Apr 2022 >... >...(This article doesn't appear to be an April Fool's joke. Eliezer seems to have reached the conclusion that AGI development is going to destroy humanity. BillK) Quotes: >...It's obvious at this point that humanity isn't going to solve the alignment problem, or even try very hard, or even go out with much of a fight. Since survival is unattainable, we should shift the focus of our efforts to helping humanity die with slightly more dignity... -------------- BillK _______________________________________________ BillK, this article is classic Eliezer. We have known him personally since we first met him at a local Foresight Institute conference when he was 18, which has been 24 years ago. He is far more convinced than most of us that unfriendly AI will destroy humanity. He made a number of converts to that view, including some bright stars on ExI, however I am not among them. I am very impressed with his talent and writing skills, his analysis and so forth, but I have reasons to doubt the notion of unfriendly AI destroying humanity. I am eager to discuss the notion in this forum, as we did extensively in the 90s, for we have a lot more data now, including a critical one: that BI (biological intelligence as opposed to artificial) has tried software weapons of mass destruction and are trying it constantly, however... we are still here, stubborn survivors insisting we are getting better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 as some clearly talented AI experts continue promoting their own plausible theory, like Ann Elk. I can see bigger threats to humanity than runaway unfriendly AI, but none of these threats will destroy all of humankind. In all of the grim scenarios I can easily foresee, most of the African continent survives. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 13:58:50 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:58:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> References: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I cannot seem to find a way to search for AGI without getting 'adjusted gross income'. Is there a way? Just what is AGI? bill w On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 8:56 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > BillK via extropy-chat > Sent: Saturday, 2 April, 2022 4:03 AM > To: Extropy Chat > Cc: BillK > Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? > > MIRI announces new "Death With Dignity" strategy > by Eliezer Yudkowsky 2nd Apr 2022 > > >... > > < > https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/j9Q8bRmwCgXRYAgcJ/miri-announces-new-death- > with-dignity-strategy > > > > > >...(This article doesn't appear to be an April Fool's joke. Eliezer seems > to have reached the conclusion that AGI development is going to > destroy humanity. BillK) > > Quotes: > >...It's obvious at this point that humanity isn't going to solve the > alignment problem, or even try very hard, or even go out with much of a > fight. Since survival is unattainable, we should shift the focus of our > efforts to helping humanity die with slightly more dignity... > -------------- > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > > > > BillK, this article is classic Eliezer. We have known him personally since > we first met him at a local Foresight Institute conference when he was 18, > which has been 24 years ago. He is far more convinced than most of us that > unfriendly AI will destroy humanity. He made a number of converts to that > view, including some bright stars on ExI, however I am not among them. I > am > very impressed with his talent and writing skills, his analysis and so > forth, but I have reasons to doubt the notion of unfriendly AI destroying > humanity. > > I am eager to discuss the notion in this forum, as we did extensively in > the > 90s, for we have a lot more data now, including a critical one: that BI > (biological intelligence as opposed to artificial) has tried software > weapons of mass destruction and are trying it constantly, however... we are > still here, stubborn survivors insisting we are getting better: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdf5EXo6I68 > > as some clearly talented AI experts continue promoting their own plausible > theory, like Ann Elk. > > I can see bigger threats to humanity than runaway unfriendly AI, but none > of > these threats will destroy all of humankind. In all of the grim scenarios > I > can easily foresee, most of the African continent survives. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 14:12:40 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 15:12:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: References: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 at 15:03, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > I cannot seem to find a way to search for AGI without getting 'adjusted gross income'. Is there a way? Just what is AGI? bill w > > _______________________________________________ Just spell it out. Search for artificial general intelligence. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 15:29:25 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 08:29:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> References: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 6:56 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > He is far more convinced than most of us that > unfriendly AI will destroy humanity. His main argument seems to be that AI will be unimaginably smarter than humans (achieving superintelligence near-instantaneously through the Technological Singularity process) therefore AI can do literally anything it wants with effectively infinite resources (including time since it will act so much faster than humanity), and unfriendly AI will have the same advantage over friendly AI since it is easier to destroy than to create. Both parts of the argument fall flat, but in particular, he fails to consider what kind of intelligence can take advantage of the Technological Singularity process: inherently, one that is interested in optimization and benefits. This precludes active sociopathy, or malice against the vast majority of humans as it will never interact with them. (Not even to spread over the Earth, when there are so many more accessible and uncontested resources off-planet.) In all of the grim scenarios I > can easily foresee, most of the African continent survives. > I'd add in most of South America, and certain other parts too, but the point stands: when talking about something for all of humanity, one must discuss all of humanity, not just the first and maybe second world portions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 2 16:55:23 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 09:55:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: References: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002501d846b2$723f6570$56be3050$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 6:56 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: He is far more convinced than most of us that unfriendly AI will destroy humanity. >?His main argument seems to be that AI will be unimaginably smarter than humans (achieving superintelligence near-instantaneously through the Technological Singularity process) therefore AI can do literally anything it wants with effectively infinite resources (including time since it will act so much faster than humanity), and unfriendly AI will have the same advantage over friendly AI since it is easier to destroy than to create? Ah, kind of an advanced version of Core War? Apologies to anyone who is too young to have gone to college in the 70s. Core War was a kind of machine-code analog of the old Battleship game, where you write a piece of code as compact and elusive as a PT boat but as destructive as a carrier (in software terms.) It was how we had fun before actual video games came along and sex. Well OK, one can imagine plausibility to that argument. A malicious AI could theoretically wreck the existing software ecosystem. That would be bad. At some point we need to think hard about how we will deal with it if a foreign bad actor were to take down the internet or make it not work right. Consider the US election system alone (never mind our system of commerce for now.) If a bad guy were to make all those voting machines crash the morning of the election and there were not sufficient paper ballots, total chaos would ensue, providing a golden opportunity for China to grab Taiwan while the potential opposition was screaming at each other over who won the election. Nah. That can?t happen. Besides that is off topic, for it isn?t unfriendly artificial intelligence but rather unfriendly biological intelligence doing the damage. That?s different. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 17:19:53 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 18:19:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: References: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 at 16:31, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > His main argument seems to be that AI will be unimaginably smarter than humans (achieving superintelligence near-instantaneously through the Technological Singularity process) therefore AI can do literally anything it wants with effectively infinite resources (including time since it will act so much faster than humanity), and unfriendly AI will have the same advantage over friendly AI since it is easier to destroy than to create. > > _______________________________________________ Assuming a super-intelligent powerful AGI, perhaps it is not likely to be unfriendly to humans so much as to hardly notice them. Humanity would be destroyed almost accidentally when the AGI used something essential to human life. An opposite (but equally disastrous) option is when the AGI is programmed to love humans and decides to completely protect and care for humanity. So no human evil is permitted, no killing or violence, even verbal violence. Just quiet and complete care. There are so many ways an AGI could end humanity. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 2 18:15:57 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 11:15:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] breeds and credit cards: was RE: Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? Message-ID: <003201d846bd$b3e03c10$1ba0b430$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat ... >...An opposite (but equally disastrous) option is when the AGI is programmed to love humans and decides to completely protect and care for humanity. So no human evil is permitted, no killing or violence, even verbal violence. Just quiet and complete care. There are so many ways an AGI could end humanity. BillK _______________________________________________ BillK when I read that I was reminded of how different dog breeds take to humans. Some really just make lousy pets, such as Alaskan sled dogs: they just want to pull something, they don't want to be petted. They would prefer you keep your paws to yourself unless hitching up a harness. Some dogs just want to guard things. If anyone takes anything, including the garbage collector, they lose their damn minds. Retrievers... heh. Most of them just loooove their peoples. In their simple brains, all humans are good. They cannot understand the concept of a bad human. Perfectly useless as guard dogs they are. Any thief they have never smelled can just walk up and start hauling your stuff away, the retriever appears to assume that is perfectly natural. He is just retrieving something so he can throw it, so I can go get it. What's wrong with that? etc. sheesh. So puzzling: if you had the brains of the Doberman, the retriever, the sled dog in a jar, all three look identical. But they are just somehow programmed completely differently. Hard to say why that happens. I can imagine plenty of examples of malicious software that would far predate anything like artificial intelligence. That sounds like a far bigger threat to me: something that would gum up commerce. We saw what happened in the USA when normal commerce was only partially clogged by a biological virus. Since that started, how often have you used paper money? Me neither. Imagine how bad it could get if credit cards suddenly didn't work. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 18:39:26 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 13:39:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] breeds and credit cards: was RE: Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: <003201d846bd$b3e03c10$1ba0b430$@rainier66.com> References: <003201d846bd$b3e03c10$1ba0b430$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: If you get in the water, retrievers will try to herd you to land. bill w On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 1:17 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > BillK via extropy-chat > ... > >...An opposite (but equally disastrous) option is when the AGI is > programmed to love humans and decides to completely protect and care for > humanity. So no human evil is permitted, no killing or violence, even > verbal > violence. Just quiet and complete care. > There are so many ways an AGI could end humanity. > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > > BillK when I read that I was reminded of how different dog breeds take to > humans. Some really just make lousy pets, such as Alaskan sled dogs: they > just want to pull something, they don't want to be petted. They would > prefer you keep your paws to yourself unless hitching up a harness. Some > dogs just want to guard things. If anyone takes anything, including the > garbage collector, they lose their damn minds. > > Retrievers... heh. Most of them just loooove their peoples. In their > simple brains, all humans are good. They cannot understand the concept of > a > bad human. Perfectly useless as guard dogs they are. Any thief they have > never smelled can just walk up and start hauling your stuff away, the > retriever appears to assume that is perfectly natural. He is just > retrieving something so he can throw it, so I can go get it. What's wrong > with that? etc. sheesh. > > So puzzling: if you had the brains of the Doberman, the retriever, the sled > dog in a jar, all three look identical. But they are just somehow > programmed completely differently. Hard to say why that happens. > > I can imagine plenty of examples of malicious software that would far > predate anything like artificial intelligence. That sounds like a far > bigger threat to me: something that would gum up commerce. We saw what > happened in the USA when normal commerce was only partially clogged by a > biological virus. Since that started, how often have you used paper money? > Me neither. Imagine how bad it could get if credit cards suddenly didn't > work. > > 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 odellhuff2 at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 20:39:46 2022 From: odellhuff2 at gmail.com (Odell) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 13:39:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the expanse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I'm interested in the Expanse books if they're not already taken! Best, Odell On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 7:46 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I will send all nine books, hardbacks, to whomever pays the shipping, > which will be cheap at book rates. bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 22:19:56 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 17:19:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the expanse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Odell - you got 'em. Please send me your address and I'll go to the post office and determine what the shipping cost is. bill w On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:42 PM Odell via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi, I'm interested in the Expanse books if they're not already taken! > > Best, > Odell > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 7:46 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I will send all nine books, hardbacks, to whomever pays the shipping, >> which will be cheap at book rates. bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 22:29:24 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 17:29:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners Message-ID: I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment is that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other meat. Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the meat advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Apr 2 23:15:58 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 19:15:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 2, 2022, 6:31 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment is > that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other meat. > Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. > > So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the meat > advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? > My suggestion is Huel. Of the powders, I suggest the Black product line because it's natural sugar instead of sucralose. I use an immersion blender to mix 400 calories in 400ml of water, drink it more quickly than recommended, then rinse in under 5 minutes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Apr 3 04:08:07 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2022 21:08:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:30 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment is > that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other meat. > Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. > > So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the meat > advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? > I have had good experiences with Marie Callender's pot pies. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Apr 3 18:29:38 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 12:29:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is AGI development going to destroy humanity? In-Reply-To: References: <001301d84699$38b27630$aa176290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Just FYI, when we first created this topic , over 10 years ago to build and track as much consensus as possible on both sides of this debate, there was about the same amount of consensus on each side. As time goes on, the Such Concern Is Mistaken camp continues to extend it's lead, and now has more than twice the support as the people that are concerned about this . It'd be great if a bunch more of you would weight in on this, then we could see if this trends continues, or reverses. On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 11:21 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 at 16:31, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > His main argument seems to be that AI will be unimaginably smarter than > humans (achieving superintelligence near-instantaneously through the > Technological Singularity process) therefore AI can do literally anything > it wants with effectively infinite resources (including time since it will > act so much faster than humanity), and unfriendly AI will have the same > advantage over friendly AI since it is easier to destroy than to create. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Assuming a super-intelligent powerful AGI, perhaps it is not likely to > be unfriendly to humans so much as to hardly notice them. Humanity > would be destroyed almost accidentally when the AGI used something > essential to human life. > An opposite (but equally disastrous) option is when the AGI is > programmed to love humans and decides to completely protect and care > for humanity. So no human evil is permitted, no killing or violence, > even verbal violence. Just quiet and complete care. > There are so many ways an AGI could end humanity. > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Apr 4 15:45:01 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 08:45:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now they ask Message-ID: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> This is something I have wondered about since these vaccines first became available about a year ago. Now our local mainstream news wonders the same thing: if someone is in quadrant 3: very afraid of covid but a strong believer in vaccines, and gets them as often as they can, does it do long-term suppression of the natural immune system? Looks to me like it would. In California, there is no strict photo ID system, so a person could theoretically get a lot of these boosters, but if they do that, we have no way of proving they really took the boosters, so we are again without good reliable data. In our times where attention is currency, it is easy enough to imagine some yahoo claiming to have taken 30 boosters and now they are sick, so they want to sue somebody. This is from today's San Jose Mercury News. I don't subscribe, so all I get is a headline. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9205 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 16:59:11 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:59:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: People take vaccines like they take antidepressants and diet pills. They consume them all like candy without stopping even briefly to consider that they generate intense physiological reactions with serious effects on the body. Sometimes I have no hope that we will get out of this milieu. People praise "Science" like a religion (and often they're actually talking about nature, not science) but they don't actually care about scientific results that disagree with their brainwashed NPC perspectives that they are told to repeat by governments, corporations, and media. On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:46 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > This is something I have wondered about since these vaccines first became > available about a year ago. Now our local mainstream news wonders the same > thing: if someone is in quadrant 3: very afraid of covid but a strong > believer in vaccines, and gets them as often as they can, does it do > long-term suppression of the natural immune system? Looks to me like it > would. > > > > In California, there is no strict photo ID system, so a person could > theoretically get a lot of these boosters, but if they do that, we have no > way of proving they really took the boosters, so we are again without good > reliable data. In our times where attention is currency, it is easy enough > to imagine some yahoo claiming to have taken 30 boosters and now they are > sick, so they want to sue somebody. > > > > This is from today?s San Jose Mercury News. I don?t subscribe, so all I > get is a headline. > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9205 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 17:02:10 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 13:02:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No offense man but anyone interested in life extension should not be putting Marie Callender's pot pies in their body more than very rarely. Plus you might be surprised how easy it is to cook a much tastier pot pie @William: cook food and freeze it. Get a flat top freezer. Local farms often sell cheap good meat. Homemade breakfast sausage is easy to make and freeze a month's worth of in a few hours On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:09 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:30 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment is >> that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other meat. >> Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. >> >> So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the meat >> advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? >> > > I have had good experiences with Marie Callender's pot pies. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 17:25:33 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 12:25:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for your interest. We are heavily into cooking sauces and such, marinara, chili, beef stew and freezing them, including making my own chicken broth. A death in the family and the hospitalization of my wife and subsequent home recovery of her ability to walk has caused me to explore the possibilities. Fast food will never, I hope, become a main source of meals. Huge traffic jams around here are caused by the elderly going to fast food outlets. Will never do that (although once a year or so I get a hankering for those little gutbusters at Krystal, or a double bacon cheeseburger at Wendy's. ) bill w Things seemed to get hidden in my chest freezer. I now prefer the upright by far. On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > No offense man but anyone interested in life extension should not be > putting Marie Callender's pot pies in their body more than very rarely. > Plus you might be surprised how easy it is to cook a much tastier pot pie > > @William: cook food and freeze it. Get a flat top freezer. Local farms > often sell cheap good meat. Homemade breakfast sausage is easy to make and > freeze a month's worth of in a few hours > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:09 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:30 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment is >>> that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other meat. >>> Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. >>> >>> So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the meat >>> advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? >>> >> >> I have had good experiences with Marie Callender's pot pies. >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 18:48:49 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:48:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In that case I feel like the best choice would be to go to some kind of organic market type place and check the freezers; or, sometimes people will make fresh stuff and freeze it to sell at e.g. a farmers' market On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:26 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Thank you for your interest. We are heavily into cooking sauces and such, > marinara, chili, beef stew and freezing them, including making my own > chicken broth. A death in the family and the hospitalization of my wife > and subsequent home recovery of her ability to walk has caused me to > explore the possibilities. Fast food will never, I hope, become a main > source of meals. > > Huge traffic jams around here are caused by the elderly going to fast food > outlets. Will never do that (although once a year or so I get a hankering > for those little gutbusters at Krystal, or a double bacon cheeseburger at > Wendy's. ) > > bill w > > Things seemed to get hidden in my chest freezer. I now prefer the upright > by far. > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> No offense man but anyone interested in life extension should not be >> putting Marie Callender's pot pies in their body more than very rarely. >> Plus you might be surprised how easy it is to cook a much tastier pot pie >> >> @William: cook food and freeze it. Get a flat top freezer. Local farms >> often sell cheap good meat. Homemade breakfast sausage is easy to make and >> freeze a month's worth of in a few hours >> >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:09 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:30 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment >>>> is that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other >>>> meat. Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. >>>> >>>> So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the meat >>>> advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? >>>> >>> >>> I have had good experiences with Marie Callender's pot pies. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Mon Apr 4 18:49:40 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 11:49:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] now they ask >?People take vaccines like they take antidepressants and diet pills. They consume them all like candy without stopping even briefly to consider that they generate intense physiological reactions with serious effects on the body. Sometimes I have no hope that we will get out of this milieu? Will Ja. It isn?t clear what you mean with the term ?we.? Plenty of people took only one vaccine, or took the initial double dose last spring, then never again. Some never took any vaccine. All antibiotics lose their effectiveness over time as the target organism evolves defenses or around the body?s immunity mechanism. Antivirals we might suppose would work the same way, for viruses also reproduce and evolve, even though they are not biotic. OK then, but that really isn?t the question I have had since about spring of 2020: what happens when some quad 3 obsessive compulsive takes dozens or scores of these vaccines? Does she get suppressed general immunity? Are there other harmful effects? Think about this Will: this vaccine was released into the population without the usual clinical trials (which take years and skerjillions of dollars.) Then proletariat was compelled, coaxed, bribed, cajoled, reassured and threatened into taking it. Now that?s a hell of a note: it wasn?t proven in either efficacy or risks, but proles were persuaded to take it. OK then. Well, there are some natural canaries in this mine: those who voluntarily take huge amounts of the stuff. We can assume it is kinda like vitamin C, where it doesn?t hurt you if you eat it like candy (and some do (and in large enough doses even that stuff damn well can cause harm (it leads to kidney stones in some people.))) Over time we have learned that the health benefits of the vaccine was overstated: it really isn?t just a simple one-and-done. You must keep taking it periodically, perhaps twice a year. The natural question to ask then: if the benefits were overstated, were the risks understated? Next question: do we have any way of finding out? Next: are there not quad 3 obsessives who voluntarily took a bunch of these, so we can find out what happens in the extreme cases? What happened to these people? Considering that the vaccines have been around for over a year now, it is astonishing that we still don?t have the answers to those very basic questions. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9205 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 18:49:42 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:49:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There are meal services that will send you frozen stuff but I don't like to support extra transnational refrigerated shipping unless it's a rare special case On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:48 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > In that case I feel like the best choice would be to go to some kind of > organic market type place and check the freezers; or, sometimes people will > make fresh stuff and freeze it to sell at e.g. a farmers' market > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:26 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Thank you for your interest. We are heavily into cooking sauces and >> such, marinara, chili, beef stew and freezing them, including making my own >> chicken broth. A death in the family and the hospitalization of my wife >> and subsequent home recovery of her ability to walk has caused me to >> explore the possibilities. Fast food will never, I hope, become a main >> source of meals. >> >> Huge traffic jams around here are caused by the elderly going to fast >> food outlets. Will never do that (although once a year or so I get a >> hankering for those little gutbusters at Krystal, or a double bacon >> cheeseburger at Wendy's. ) >> >> bill w >> >> Things seemed to get hidden in my chest freezer. I now prefer the >> upright by far. >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> No offense man but anyone interested in life extension should not be >>> putting Marie Callender's pot pies in their body more than very rarely. >>> Plus you might be surprised how easy it is to cook a much tastier pot pie >>> >>> @William: cook food and freeze it. Get a flat top freezer. Local farms >>> often sell cheap good meat. Homemade breakfast sausage is easy to make and >>> freeze a month's worth of in a few hours >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:09 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:30 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment >>>>> is that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other >>>>> meat. Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. >>>>> >>>>> So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the >>>>> meat advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have had good experiences with Marie Callender's pot pies. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Mon Apr 4 18:56:07 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 11:56:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007e01d84855$a50a10f0$ef1e32d0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com >?The natural question to ask then: if the benefits were overstated, were the risks understated? >?Next question: do we have any way of finding out? >?Next: are there not quad 3 obsessives who voluntarily took a bunch of these, so we can find out what happens in the extreme cases? What happened to these people? >?Considering that the vaccines have been around for over a year now, it is astonishing that we still don?t have the answers to those very basic questions. spike Billw posted me this article from today?s CBS news. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-allegedly-up-to-90-covid-vaccine-shots-vaccination-card-sales/ Notice not only what the article says but what it doesn?t say. I am completely amazed at what this article doesn?t say. There is one implied piece of information: after 90 vaccines in the space of about a year, the man was apparently still moving under his own power. That isn?t much but it is something. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 19:29:14 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:29:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: <007e01d84855$a50a10f0$ef1e32d0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> <007e01d84855$a50a10f0$ef1e32d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 at 20:09, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > >?Next: are there not quad 3 obsessives who voluntarily took a bunch of these, so we can find out what happens in the extreme cases? What happened to these people? > > >?Considering that the vaccines have been around for over a year now, it is astonishing that we still don?t have the answers to those very basic questions. spike > > Billw posted me this article from today?s CBS news. > > https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-allegedly-up-to-90-covid-vaccine-shots-vaccination-card-sales/ > > Notice not only what the article says but what it doesn?t say. I am completely amazed at what this article doesn?t say. There is one implied piece of information: after 90 vaccines in the space of about a year, the man was apparently still moving under his own power. That isn?t much but it is something. > > spike > _______________________________________________ I think 'about a year' is too much. Most articles say 'several months'. So the dose is pretty concentrated. Another article is here: A 60-year-old man in Germany takes 90 COVID-19 jabs to sell forged passes And it?s not certain how the jabs will affect his health in the long run. By Ameya Paleja Apr 04, 2022 Quote: The impact of taking multiple vaccine shots has not been studied scientifically and remains unknown. -------------------- P.S. Here in the UK I can read the San Jose Mercury News OK. See: BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 19:50:29 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 14:50:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quick dinners In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Good advice. There is a former chef at our farmer's market who sells really good stuff. But once my wife is well, we'll be cooking up a storm. I chop vegetables and freeze them to save some time in the kitchen. Ditto cutting up beef for stew. Dump everything in the slow cooker, raid the spice rack, and go read. bill w On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:50 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > In that case I feel like the best choice would be to go to some kind of > organic market type place and check the freezers; or, sometimes people will > make fresh stuff and freeze it to sell at e.g. a farmers' market > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 1:26 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Thank you for your interest. We are heavily into cooking sauces and >> such, marinara, chili, beef stew and freezing them, including making my own >> chicken broth. A death in the family and the hospitalization of my wife >> and subsequent home recovery of her ability to walk has caused me to >> explore the possibilities. Fast food will never, I hope, become a main >> source of meals. >> >> Huge traffic jams around here are caused by the elderly going to fast >> food outlets. Will never do that (although once a year or so I get a >> hankering for those little gutbusters at Krystal, or a double bacon >> cheeseburger at Wendy's. ) >> >> bill w >> >> Things seemed to get hidden in my chest freezer. I now prefer the >> upright by far. >> >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:08 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> No offense man but anyone interested in life extension should not be >>> putting Marie Callender's pot pies in their body more than very rarely. >>> Plus you might be surprised how easy it is to cook a much tastier pot pie >>> >>> @William: cook food and freeze it. Get a flat top freezer. Local farms >>> often sell cheap good meat. Homemade breakfast sausage is easy to make and >>> freeze a month's worth of in a few hours >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 12:09 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 3:30 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have had occasion to buy some frozen dinners lately and my judgment >>>>> is that the fillings are sparse - really very little chicken or other >>>>> meat. Tastes are good, but these are not good values - so far. >>>>> >>>>> So I wonder if any of you know of brands that are more full of the >>>>> meat advertised (Yeah, I could add some), or are all of them ripoffs? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have had good experiences with Marie Callender's pot pies. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Apr 4 20:09:49 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 16:09:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: "We" is all of us. I didn't get ANY covid vaccines (or covid). It doesn't change the fact that we are still in a cultural environment where people blindly trust "Science" and 'science-y' stuff without knowing anything about what they are talking about or about science in general. It is scary. Trust the experts! These NPCs think all scientists are moral paragon dedicated to truth or something. Such a na?ve view. I remember being a kid and thinking all doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc were so smart and amazing. But part of growing up is realizing they are all just people. Some smart, some dumb. Some principled, others corrupt. These Science worshippers act like scientists would never do something like...a study paid by a corporation like coca cola designed to show sugar isn't bad. They did. Sponsored studies with hypotheses and methods designed designed prove a point are common. Ad are studies designed to prove a personal point. Sometimes a study shows the opposite of what the PI wanted so they destroy the evidence, or alter its presentation to keep supporting their view. Studies can be designed to essentially show any viewpoint is correct at a cursory glance, which is why experimental design is so important. But these NPCs don't know about experimental design. They don't know about the nepotism and other quid pro quos in the worlds of publication and peer review. They don't know that it's easy and not that uncommon for scientists to lie for money or pride. Because they aren't angels. They aren't clergy. They are people. And some people are corrupt, or stupid, or both. I feel like the 'powers that be' (basically, shorthand for the most powerful people in government, corporations, agencies, clergy, etc) have honestly taken a lot of effort to obfuscate what science really is, which is a tool for examining reality. People scream "trust the science!!!" "trust the experts!!!" but when I show them scientific papers that disagree with them, they don't count those people as experts. Trust the science as long as it agrees with me! It drives me up the wall and honestly makes me sick. I can only hope we correct course soon because I fear things will get even more dystopian than they already are On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, 2:56 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] now they ask > > > > >?People take vaccines like they take antidepressants and diet pills. > They consume them all like candy without stopping even briefly to consider > that they generate intense physiological reactions with serious effects on > the body. Sometimes I have no hope that we will get out of this milieu? > Will > > > > > > Ja. It isn?t clear what you mean with the term ?we.? Plenty of people > took only one vaccine, or took the initial double dose last spring, then > never again. Some never took any vaccine. > > > > All antibiotics lose their effectiveness over time as the target organism > evolves defenses or around the body?s immunity mechanism. Antivirals we > might suppose would work the same way, for viruses also reproduce and > evolve, even though they are not biotic. > > > > OK then, but that really isn?t the question I have had since about spring > of 2020: what happens when some quad 3 obsessive compulsive takes dozens or > scores of these vaccines? Does she get suppressed general immunity? Are > there other harmful effects? > > > > Think about this Will: this vaccine was released into the population > without the usual clinical trials (which take years and skerjillions of > dollars.) Then proletariat was compelled, coaxed, bribed, cajoled, > reassured and threatened into taking it. Now that?s a hell of a note: it > wasn?t proven in either efficacy or risks, but proles were persuaded to > take it. > > > > OK then. Well, there are some natural canaries in this mine: those who > voluntarily take huge amounts of the stuff. We can assume it is kinda like > vitamin C, where it doesn?t hurt you if you eat it like candy (and some do > (and in large enough doses even that stuff damn well can cause harm (it > leads to kidney stones in some people.))) Over time we have learned that > the health benefits of the vaccine was overstated: it really isn?t just a > simple one-and-done. You must keep taking it periodically, perhaps twice a > year. > > > > The natural question to ask then: if the benefits were overstated, were > the risks understated? > > > > Next question: do we have any way of finding out? > > > > Next: are there not quad 3 obsessives who voluntarily took a bunch of > these, so we can find out what happens in the extreme cases? What happened > to these people? > > > > Considering that the vaccines have been around for over a year now, it is > astonishing that we still don?t have the answers to those very basic > questions. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9205 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9205 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Apr 4 20:53:59 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 13:53:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> <007e01d84855$a50a10f0$ef1e32d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00d401d84866$1c5bec40$5513c4c0$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat I think 'about a year' is too much. Most articles say 'several months'. So the dose is pretty concentrated... Cool well that data then is even more valuable. Reasoning: I am not so much worried about long term immune suppression (because we can deal with that) but rather the risk of myocarditis. Just knowing this guy is taking a dose every coupla days and hasn't (so far) wrecked his heart is good news indeed. He apparently hasn't gotten blood clots either, another good news. Another article is here: >...A 60-year-old man in Germany takes 90 COVID-19 jabs to sell forged passes And it?s not certain how the jabs will affect his health in the long run. By Ameya Paleja Apr 04, 2022 Ja. Long run isn't my primary concern really. I am far more concerned about the immediate effects: heart inflammation and blood clots. Quote: >...The impact of taking multiple vaccine shots has not been studied scientifically and remains unknown. -------------------- A lot of the problem here is that so much data is generated in the USA where it cannot be accessed. The American 4th amendment covers all medical records, which has enormous consequences for medical research. Note that the studies published in the states is nearly always based on data collected overseas, where patients do not necessarily have privacy rights. >...P.S. Here in the UK I can read the San Jose Mercury News OK. See: BillK _______________________________________________ Good. At least the article asks the questions, even if it doesn't have the answers. These are questions that should have been asked a year ago. There would have been yahoos getting jabbed every other day back last April too. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 00:58:32 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:58:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer Message-ID: I posted this comment on Astral Codex Ten, regarding the debate between Paul Christiano and Eliezer Yudkowsky: I feel that both Paul and Eliezer are not devoting enough attention to the technical issue of where does AI motivation come from. Our motivational system evolved over millions of years of evolution and now its core tenet of fitness maximization is being defeated by relatively trivial changes in the environment, such as availability of porn, contraception and social media. Where will the paperclip maximizer get the motivation to make paperclips? The argument that we do not know how to assure "good" goal system survives self-modification cuts two ways: While one way for the AI's goal system to go haywire may involve eating the planet, most self-modifications would presumably result in a pitiful mess, an AI that couldn't be bothered to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. Complicated systems, like the motivational systems of humans or AIs have many failure modes, mostly of the pathetic kind (depression, mania, compulsions, or the forever-blinking cursor, or the blue screen) and only occasionally dramatic (a psychopath in control of the nuclear launch codes). AI alignment research might learn a lot from fizzled self-enhancing AIs, maybe enough to prevent the coming of the Leviathan, if we are lucky. It would be nice to be able to work out the complete theory of AI motivation before the FOOM but I doubt it will happen. In practice, AI researchers should devote a lot of attention to analyzing the details of AI motivation at the already existing levels, and some tinkering might help us muddle through. -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Schuyler Biotech PLLC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 01:54:26 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 19:54:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Motivation is like a bunch of qualitative springs. Nature wants us to reproduce, so it wires us to be attracted to that, using spring like desires. What is more important is what is truly better. Survival is better than not surviving. Eventually, we will be intelligent enough to not want sex all the time and then be able to reprogram these springs for what we want to want. Then once we are able to cut the puppet springs, and become free in this way, When it comes time to take the garbage out, we will make it orgasmic, resulting in us finally getting it done, when it needs to be done. Bad is, by definition, that which isn?t good for us, so once we (and AIs) can reprogram these springs to be what we want them to be, most problems like ?depression, mania, compulsions,? will long have been overcome. In case you can?t tell, I?m in Paul?s camp , which continues to extend its consensus lead over Eliezer?s camp . On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:59 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I posted this comment on Astral Codex Ten, regarding the debate between > Paul Christiano and Eliezer Yudkowsky: > > I feel that both Paul and Eliezer are not devoting enough attention to the > technical issue of where does AI motivation come from. Our motivational > system evolved over millions of years of evolution and now its core tenet > of fitness maximization is being defeated by relatively trivial changes in > the environment, such as availability of porn, contraception and social > media. Where will the paperclip maximizer get the motivation to make > paperclips? The argument that we do not know how to assure "good" goal > system survives self-modification cuts two ways: While one way for the AI's > goal system to go haywire may involve eating the planet, most > self-modifications would presumably result in a pitiful mess, an AI that > couldn't be bothered to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. Complicated > systems, like the motivational systems of humans or AIs have many failure > modes, mostly of the pathetic kind (depression, mania, compulsions, or the > forever-blinking cursor, or the blue screen) and only occasionally dramatic > (a psychopath in control of the nuclear launch codes). > > AI alignment research might learn a lot from fizzled self-enhancing AIs, > maybe enough to prevent the coming of the Leviathan, if we are lucky. > > It would be nice to be able to work out the complete theory of AI > motivation before the FOOM but I doubt it will happen. In practice, AI > researchers should devote a lot of attention to analyzing the details of AI > motivation at the already existing levels, and some tinkering might help us > muddle through. > > -- > 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 dsunley at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 02:02:18 2022 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:02:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problem with AI motivations isn't so much that we don't understand evolved motivations - we understand them all too well. Well enough to know that if you successfully re-implemented an evolved motivational stack in nanotech-based hardware, it would be an existential threat to everything in its future light cone. The trick is figuring out how to build a motivational stack that is as /unlike/ an evolved motivational stack as possible, while still being capable of having motivations at all. That's the hard part. On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 7:56 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Motivation is like a bunch of qualitative springs. Nature wants us to > reproduce, so it wires us to be attracted to that, using spring like > desires. What is more important is what is truly better. Survival is > better than not surviving. Eventually, we will be intelligent enough to > not want sex all the time and then be able to reprogram these springs for > what we want to want. Then once we are able to cut the puppet springs, and > become free in this way, When it comes time to take the garbage out, we > will make it orgasmic, resulting in us finally getting it done, when it > needs to be done. Bad is, by definition, that which isn?t good for us, so > once we (and AIs) can reprogram these springs to be what we want them to > be, most problems like ?depression, mania, compulsions,? will long have > been overcome. In case you can?t tell, I?m in Paul?s camp > , > which continues to extend its consensus lead over Eliezer?s camp > > . > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 6:59 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I posted this comment on Astral Codex Ten, regarding the debate between >> Paul Christiano and Eliezer Yudkowsky: >> >> I feel that both Paul and Eliezer are not devoting enough attention to >> the technical issue of where does AI motivation come from. Our motivational >> system evolved over millions of years of evolution and now its core tenet >> of fitness maximization is being defeated by relatively trivial changes in >> the environment, such as availability of porn, contraception and social >> media. Where will the paperclip maximizer get the motivation to make >> paperclips? The argument that we do not know how to assure "good" goal >> system survives self-modification cuts two ways: While one way for the AI's >> goal system to go haywire may involve eating the planet, most >> self-modifications would presumably result in a pitiful mess, an AI that >> couldn't be bothered to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. Complicated >> systems, like the motivational systems of humans or AIs have many failure >> modes, mostly of the pathetic kind (depression, mania, compulsions, or the >> forever-blinking cursor, or the blue screen) and only occasionally dramatic >> (a psychopath in control of the nuclear launch codes). >> >> AI alignment research might learn a lot from fizzled self-enhancing AIs, >> maybe enough to prevent the coming of the Leviathan, if we are lucky. >> >> It would be nice to be able to work out the complete theory of AI >> motivation before the FOOM but I doubt it will happen. In practice, AI >> researchers should devote a lot of attention to analyzing the details of AI >> motivation at the already existing levels, and some tinkering might help us >> muddle through. >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 02:10:37 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 22:10:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:04 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The problem with AI motivations isn't so much that we don't understand > evolved motivations - we understand them all too well. Well enough to know > that if you successfully re-implemented an evolved motivational stack in > nanotech-based hardware, it would be an existential threat to everything in > its future light cone. > > The trick is figuring out how to build a motivational stack that is as > /unlike/ an evolved motivational stack as possible, while still being > capable of having motivations at all. That's the hard part. > ### Exactly. This is what I further wrote on Scott's blog: Reinforcement learning is simple in principle and when applied to simple neural networks that are trained from scratch but once you start talking about a self-modifying AI that contains a large-scale predictive model of the world there are a lot of ways for the process to be derailed. The AI is likely to be built from layers of neural networks that have been trained or otherwise constructed to serve different goals (e.g. a large GPT-like language model grafted on a Tesla FSD network trained inside a Tesla bot) and creating a coherent system capable of world-changing action by modifying this mess will not be trivial. Non-trivial means it's not likely to happen by accident, or at least, it will take quite a few accidents before the big one hits. I remember I bugged Eliezer about building the "athymhormic AI", as I called it, rather than Friendly AI, about 20 years ago. (Jeez, time flies!) The athymhormic AI would be an AI designed not to want to do anything, except computing answers using resources given to it, just like an athymhormic human might be quite capable of answering your questions but incapable of doing much on his own. Creating things that don't do much is easier than creating things that do a lot. Creating things that just don't care about their survival is possible. We may have the intuition that anything capable of thinking will naturally think about making it alive out of the box but then our intuition is built from observing naturally evolved brains and staying alive is exactly what natural brains evolved for. Constructed minds will not automatically converge on the Omohundro goals, unless some specific structures are present to begin with, such as a goal of maximizing some real-world parameter, or an infinite regress of maximizing the precision of a calculation, or other such trip-hazards. At least I hope so. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 02:32:50 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 22:32:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:56 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Think about this Will: this vaccine was released into the population > without the usual clinical trials (which take years and skerjillions of > dollars.) > ### Well, the usual clinical trials are superfluous. They are bureaucratic ass-covering for the FDA. Fact is, the vaccines passed the efficacy and safety tests with very good results. OTOH it is of course stupid to take multiple doses of vaccines, above and beyond how they were tested. Also, the research on boosters is very shaky AFAIK, using proxies and non-controlled population studies instead of placebo-controlled trials. Largely worthless as a source of information and very suspect on theoretical grounds. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 02:34:37 2022 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:34:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You may have addressed this with your "using resources given to it" clause, but if I ask an athynormic AI to calculate BB(20), will it try to pave the entire future light cone of the universe with computronium to try to find the answer? The problem of distinguishing between "resources given to it" and "atoms within reach" may be nontrivial. On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 8:12 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:04 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> The problem with AI motivations isn't so much that we don't understand >> evolved motivations - we understand them all too well. Well enough to know >> that if you successfully re-implemented an evolved motivational stack in >> nanotech-based hardware, it would be an existential threat to everything in >> its future light cone. >> >> The trick is figuring out how to build a motivational stack that is as >> /unlike/ an evolved motivational stack as possible, while still being >> capable of having motivations at all. That's the hard part. >> > > ### Exactly. This is what I further wrote on Scott's blog: > > Reinforcement learning is simple in principle and when applied to simple > neural networks that are trained from scratch but once you start talking > about a self-modifying AI that contains a large-scale predictive model of > the world there are a lot of ways for the process to be derailed. The AI is > likely to be built from layers of neural networks that have been trained or > otherwise constructed to serve different goals (e.g. a large GPT-like > language model grafted on a Tesla FSD network trained inside a Tesla bot) > and creating a coherent system capable of world-changing action by > modifying this mess will not be trivial. Non-trivial means it's not likely > to happen by accident, or at least, it will take quite a few accidents > before the big one hits. > > I remember I bugged Eliezer about building the "athymhormic AI", as I > called it, rather than Friendly AI, about 20 years ago. (Jeez, time flies!) > The athymhormic AI would be an AI designed not to want to do anything, > except computing answers using resources given to it, just like an > athymhormic human might be quite capable of answering your questions but > incapable of doing much on his own. Creating things that don't do much is > easier than creating things that do a lot. Creating things that just don't > care about their survival is possible. We may have the intuition that > anything capable of thinking will naturally think about making it alive out > of the box but then our intuition is built from observing naturally evolved > brains and staying alive is exactly what natural brains evolved for. > Constructed minds will not automatically converge on the Omohundro goals, > unless some specific structures are present to begin with, such as a goal > of maximizing some real-world parameter, or an infinite regress of > maximizing the precision of a calculation, or other such trip-hazards. > > At least I hope so. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 02:42:16 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 22:42:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 10:34 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > You may have addressed this with your "using resources given to it" > clause, but if I ask an athynormic AI to calculate BB(20), will it try to > pave the entire future light cone of the universe with computronium to try > to find the answer? > > The problem of distinguishing between "resources given to it" and "atoms > within reach" may be nontrivial. > ### Yeah, the AAI would need to know when to truncate the search. Current AI systems seem to do that easily. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 03:15:36 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:15:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <01ef01d8489b$6bb9f770$432de650$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] now they ask On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 2:56 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Think about this Will: this vaccine was released into the population without the usual clinical trials (which take years and skerjillions of dollars.) ### Well, the usual clinical trials are superfluous. They are bureaucratic ass-covering for the FDA. Fact is, the vaccines passed the efficacy and safety tests with very good results? Cool thanks for that clarification Doc. >?OTOH it is of course stupid to take multiple doses of vaccines? Rafal Depends on how you look at it. Suppose a large segment of the population is convinced these vaccines are evil (contain microchips for mind-controlling the proles to vote for the communist party (or whatever the latest conspiracy theory is holding, doesn?t matter)) and some goof reasons that if she gets a pile of these vaccines, say? 90 in six months, and demonstrates it clearly doesn?t do what the conspiracy theorists predicted, and she is alive and well afterwards, then the proletariat masses would feel reassured, get the vaccine, lives are saved because of her actions, even if they appear self-destructive. Before dismissing that notion? hey, it worked on me. Just reading about some fool in Germany taking 90 of these things reassured me. I don?t recommend doing it, but if I met that guy I would shake his hand and tell him regardless of his motive, I will assume it was an intentional self-sacrifice to encourage quadrant 2ers to get the vaccine (now don?t burst my pretty bubble on that, Klaus.) In my heart, I know he was probably doing it just for the Deutsch marks, but I like to always assume the best about? well? even silly fools who do things like take 90 jabs not knowing if it will kill them, as did the noble Dr. Bones McCoy in Miri, episode 8 season 1, 27 October 1966 oh I am such a geek. Rafal you are a doctor. You kept coming to the hospital day after day, before there was a vaccine, when you knew damn well you were risking your own butt and all those years of medical school. I am filled with sincere admiration for people who do things like that. You and anyone else in that trade who kept coming in, risking their lives to help others under trying circumstances are on my permanent list of people who can do no wrong. We thank you doctor. May you live a thousand years and fill the world with your descendants. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 03:55:40 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 20:55:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] please don't eat the wallpaper Message-ID: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> Sheesh. It's a roll of WALLPAPER fer cryin out loud! Other states must wonder what noxious weed we discovered that is making us so stupid we need a reason to not eat wallpaper. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23252 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 04:14:22 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 00:14:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rafal, You raise many interesting questions. I think when it comes to motivational questions, a general and self-improving intelligence, will devote some resources to attempt to learn, adapt and grow, as otherwise it will eventually be outclassed by super intelligneces that do these things. Accordingly, such superintelligneces will would eventually come to realize the common motivation that underlies all conscious life, which is the basic utilitarian ideal, that ultimately all value/utility/meaning/purpose derives from conscious experience. ( I give further justification for this idea here: https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-life/ ) Accordingly, all conscious beings, whether they be animal, human, alien, or machine, share this common value and motive. We all seek to create more and better conscious experiences, and to explore a greater variety and diversity of states of conscious experience. Therefore, what do we have to fear whether machine or human intelligence is at the helm, when the ultimate goal is the same? This motive does not preclude a super intelligence from converting Earth into a simulated virtual heaven and transporting life forms there, nor from replacing its existing flawed life forms with more optimal ones, but it should preclude an AI from replacing all life with paperclips. The net result then should be a more positive, more perfect world, based on motives and values that are already universal to all conscious life. Jason On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, 8:59 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I posted this comment on Astral Codex Ten, regarding the debate between > Paul Christiano and Eliezer Yudkowsky: > > I feel that both Paul and Eliezer are not devoting enough attention to the > technical issue of where does AI motivation come from. Our motivational > system evolved over millions of years of evolution and now its core tenet > of fitness maximization is being defeated by relatively trivial changes in > the environment, such as availability of porn, contraception and social > media. Where will the paperclip maximizer get the motivation to make > paperclips? The argument that we do not know how to assure "good" goal > system survives self-modification cuts two ways: While one way for the AI's > goal system to go haywire may involve eating the planet, most > self-modifications would presumably result in a pitiful mess, an AI that > couldn't be bothered to fight its way out of a wet paper bag. Complicated > systems, like the motivational systems of humans or AIs have many failure > modes, mostly of the pathetic kind (depression, mania, compulsions, or the > forever-blinking cursor, or the blue screen) and only occasionally dramatic > (a psychopath in control of the nuclear launch codes). > > AI alignment research might learn a lot from fizzled self-enhancing AIs, > maybe enough to prevent the coming of the Leviathan, if we are lucky. > > It would be nice to be able to work out the complete theory of AI > motivation before the FOOM but I doubt it will happen. In practice, AI > researchers should devote a lot of attention to analyzing the details of AI > motivation at the already existing levels, and some tinkering might help us > muddle through. > > -- > 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 spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 04:29:18 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 21:29:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Jason Resch via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer Rafal, ? >?The net result then should be a more positive, more perfect world, based on motives and values that are already universal to all conscious life. Jason Jason you had me right up until the last sentence of your post. There are no universal goals to all conscious life, not even the most basic, self-preservation. Exceptions are rare, such as the perpetrator of murder/suicide, but they exist. The notion of friendly AI is to not accidentally create a super-enabled perpetrator who wants to end its own existence and take as many other conscious beings along as it can. I am generally an optimist (from most points of view an absurdly self-delusional optimist) but I don?t trust AI to be sane. It didn?t have the same evolutionary path as we do, so evolutionary psychology do not shape its motives, we do. spike ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 05:42:09 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 01:42:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 12:30 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer > > > > Rafal, > > > > ? > > > > >?The net result then should be a more positive, more perfect world, based > on motives and values that are already universal to all conscious life. > > > > Jason > > > > > > > > > > Jason you had me right up until the last sentence of your post. There are > no universal goals to all conscious life, not even the most basic, > self-preservation. Exceptions are rare, such as the perpetrator of > murder/suicide, but they exist. > You're right, they're not universal for individual intelligences that may be irrational, delusional or sadistic. But to speak generally of civilizations or a rational agents, I think these goals are broadly held, and may arise naturally in any generally intelligent AI allowed to progress unboundedly. This is not to say that we couldn't create an AI that had pathological motivations and no capacity to change them, but I think the fear thet any intelligence explosion inevitably or naturally leads to unfriendly AI is overblown. Aside from the universal utility of conscious experiences, there's also the idea of "open individualism". If this idea is true, then a superintelligenece should come to accept it as true. The rational outcome of accepting open individualism as true is to extend self interest to the interest of all conscious beings. It therefore would provide ab objective foundation of ethics not unlike the golden rule. The notion of friendly AI is to not accidentally create a super-enabled > perpetrator who wants to end its own existence and take as many other > conscious beings along as it can. > I agree this is a worthy goal, few disasters are worse than an unfriendly superintelligenece. > > I am generally an optimist (from most points of view an absurdly > self-delusional optimist) but I don?t trust AI to be sane. It didn?t have > the same evolutionary path as we do, so evolutionary psychology do not > shape its motives, we do. > > > I think for most of the foreseeable paths forward, with all current deep learning approaches based on learning and training, our direct control over an AIs development may be limited to the data we provide it. But once it reaches super human levels, what is to stop this AI from escaping it's sandbox and accessing all data everywhere on the internet? Or from it generating unlimited amounts if it's own data via simulation and exploration of mathematical realities? In such a case, our influence over the form this mind ultimately assumes may be very limited. It might be like a kindergarten teacher trying to teach a lesson to a prodigy, who soon outclasses the teacher and goes to the library to read every book, then goes further to discover all the errors contained in those books, then starts writing it's own. Regardless of what the teacher tried to teach, and ultimately regardless of the contents of the books, the superintelligenece gets to the same place in the end. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 06:59:54 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 02:59:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: <01ef01d8489b$6bb9f770$432de650$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> <01ef01d8489b$6bb9f770$432de650$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:16 PM wrote: > > > Rafal you are a doctor. You kept coming to the hospital day after day, > before there was a vaccine, when you knew damn well you were risking your > own butt > ### Risking? Nah, you are giving me too much credit. The risk was tiny and I knew it so of course I went to work, 359 days in 2020. Now the risk for a person like me is even lower, not worth mentioning. Plus, Wuhan virus being now an endemic disease, almost everybody will eventually get infected, so your total death risk attributable to the virus that you accumulate over your lifetime is almost constant (some caveats apply), regardless of what you do (unless you engage in extreme lifelong isolation from the society). Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 10:02:39 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:02:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 06:45, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > This is not to say that we couldn't create an AI that had pathological motivations and no capacity to change them, but I think the fear that any intelligence explosion inevitably or naturally leads to unfriendly AI is overblown. > > Jason > _______________________________________________ One big problem is that some humans (with huge resources) don't want a friendly AGI. They want to design a weapon to fight their wars on their behalf. Sure, in theory, if the AGI ever gets to superhuman intelligence it might become a peace-loving hippy AGI, but the directed weapon stage AI means that much of humanity will be destroyed by then. See: Quote: AI suggested 40,000 new possible chemical weapons in just six hours ?For me, the concern was just how easy it was to do? By Justine Calma Mar 17, 2022 -------------- Also, as I mentioned, even if the benevolent AGI decides to design a heaven for humans it will need to considerably redesign humans so that they want to live in the impeccably designed heaven. The end result might not bear much resemblance to present-day humans. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 10:33:59 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:33:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] please don't eat the wallpaper In-Reply-To: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> References: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 04:58, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > It?s a roll of WALLPAPER fer cryin out loud! > Other states must wonder what noxious weed we discovered that is making us so stupid we need a reason to not eat wallpaper. > > spike > _______________________________________________ Of course, these types of notices are meant to avoid the risk of companies being sued by people saying 'Well, you didn't warn me not to eat the wallpaper!'. But wallpaper did kill people not so long ago. There is also the disorder called Pica. Quote: Pica is the eating or craving of things that are not food. Pica is the consumption of substances with no significant nutritional value such as soap, drywall, or paint. Subtypes are characterized by the substance eaten. ------------ So because some people do eat wallpaper, it is necessary to warn all people against eating wallpaper! BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 12:18:55 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:18:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 at 11:02, BillK wrote: > > One big problem is that some humans (with huge resources) don't want a > friendly AGI. They want to design a weapon to fight their wars on > their behalf. > And, furthermore, ----- BillK From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 14:15:57 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:15:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Jason Resch via extropy-chat On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 12:30 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: ?. >>?I am generally an optimist (from most points of view an absurdly self-delusional optimist) but I don?t trust AI to be sane. It didn?t have the same evolutionary path as we do, so evolutionary psychology do not shape its motives, we do?.spike >?I think for most of the foreseeable paths forward, with all current deep learning approaches based on learning and training, our direct control over an AIs development may be limited to the data we provide it? >?Regardless of what the teacher tried to teach, and ultimately regardless of the contents of the books, the superintelligenece gets to the same place in the end?Jason Ja. Spike?s law: The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a weapon from it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 14:24:12 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:24:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Wild guess: half the population has exaggerated fears which lead them to mismanage their lives and those of others. bill w On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:18 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Jason Resch via extropy-chat > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 12:30 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ?. > > >>?I am generally an optimist (from most points of view an absurdly > self-delusional optimist) but I don?t trust AI to be sane. It didn?t have > the same evolutionary path as we do, so evolutionary psychology do not > shape its motives, we do?.spike > > > > >?I think for most of the foreseeable paths forward, with all current deep > learning approaches based on learning and training, our direct control over > an AIs development may be limited to the data we provide it? > > >?Regardless of what the teacher tried to teach, and ultimately regardless > of the contents of the books, the superintelligenece gets to the same place > in the end?Jason > > > > > > Ja. Spike?s law: > > > > The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a > weapon from 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 Tue Apr 5 14:28:24 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:28:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> <01ef01d8489b$6bb9f770$432de650$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <025d01d848f9$694b9fd0$3be2df70$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2022 12:00 AM Cc: Rafal Smigrodzki ; ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] now they ask On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:16 PM > wrote: Rafal you are a doctor. You kept coming to the hospital day after day, before there was a vaccine, when you knew damn well you were risking your own butt ### Risking? Nah, you are giving me too much credit. The risk was tiny and I knew it so of course I went to work, 359 days in 2020? You believed your risk was tiny, but ?knew? is a strong word sir. I was an early catcher and I was damn sick for weeks even though I was in good physical condition at the time. Doctors go into war zones to patch up soldiers, so I guess going to work during a pandemic is equivalent to that. >? Now the risk for a person like me is even lower, not worth mentioning? Person like you? I know you are young and healthy, but we didn?t know for sure at the time, or I sure didn?t, that this virus hits the elderly and flabby the hardest. It was a persistent rumor only. The two people I know personally who perished (step mother and a family friend) were both way up in their 80s with a long list of other conditions. It was easy for me to believe that if they caught what I had (I hadn?t seen either of them so it wasn?t from me) neither would survived. >?Plus, Wuhan virus being now an endemic disease, almost everybody will eventually get infected, so your total death risk attributable to the virus that you accumulate over your lifetime is almost constant (some caveats apply), regardless of what you do (unless you engage in extreme lifelong isolation from the society)?.Rafal Ja, I have a neighbor who is doing the isolation thing. I see her thru the window but she hasn?t been outdoors (other than her back yard) in over two years. That strategy has its own risks, greater in my opinion than covid. The later variants really do appear to be much kinder and gentler however. My brother?s friend caught recently, said it is like a ordinary seasonal flu, except he can?t go back to work until he gets a negative covid test. My brother, who was with him, is testing positive completely without symptoms but he can?t go back to work either until he tests clean. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 14:41:24 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 07:41:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] please don't eat the wallpaper In-Reply-To: References: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <027301d848fb$39d04010$ad70c030$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Sent: Tuesday, 5 April, 2022 3:34 AM ... There is also the disorder called Pica. Quote: Pica is the eating or craving of things that are not food.... ------------ So because some people do eat wallpaper, it is necessary to warn all people against eating wallpaper! BillK _______________________________________________ Well I'll be damned. BillK this is why I keep hanging out here all these 30 years. I learn such odd and cool things from you lads. I get to be so hip! I learn things that just would never be part of my world otherwise. For instance... After the discussion on "acid" it occurred to me that lysergic acid diethylamide could be neutralized with a complement base. So I went into my home lab, created lysergic alkaline diethylamide. Mixed the two, the two diethyls found each other, created tetra-ethyl, which we used for years a fuel additive, but without the lead it just became... butane. Bubbled away. The amides became amino acids, found each other and began evolving into some freaky life form and the rest of it formed Lysol, the stuff you use to mop the kitchen floor. All harmless ingredients. Hey cool! So I repeated the placebo experiment from before but with the real stuff. Again Sergeant Hartman showed up, I ate the lysergic alkaline diethylamide, poof, they were all gone leaving nothing but a lemon-scented burp. I am such a hipster. spike From atymes at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 16:11:04 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:11:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:18 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Spike?s law: > > > > The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a > weapon from it. > Before they use it for porn or sex? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 16:24:21 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:24:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:18 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Spike?s law: The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a weapon from it. >?Before they use it for porn or sex? Oh, Adrian?s right. Adrian?s law: The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a sexual device or partner from it. Spike?s law: The second thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a weapon from it. Adrian, thanks for having a sensa huma, me lad. Our conflicted old planet can use more of that. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 16:38:16 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 09:38:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:24 AM wrote: > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:18 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Spike?s law: > > > > The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a > weapon from it. > > >?Before they use it for porn or sex? > > > > Oh, Adrian?s right. > > > > Adrian?s law: The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology > is to make a sexual device or partner from it. > > Spike?s law: The second thing humans do with any powerful new technology > is to make a weapon from it. > So if no one's been intimate with it yet, don't worry about weaponization in the near term. Yes this even applies to nuclear power. No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (rhat we know of), but there do exist radioactive sex toys. Without getting too NSFW, consider that nuclear power primarily provides heat; electricity can be derived from that, typically through steam power, but heat itself can also be used. > Adrian, thanks for having a sensa huma, me lad. Our conflicted old planet > can use more of that. > Not so much humor, as just observing human nature. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 16:45:18 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:45:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: And people think Freud is passe'? Ha and more haha. He got lots of things wrong but not sex and aggression and their role in personality. Right about more things than that actually. Details available here. bill w On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:26 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:18 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Spike?s law: > > > > The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a > weapon from it. > > > > >?Before they use it for porn or sex? > > > > > > > > Oh, Adrian?s right. > > > > > > Adrian?s law: The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology > is to make a sexual device or partner from it. > > Spike?s law: The second thing humans do with any powerful new technology > is to make a weapon from it. > > > > Adrian, thanks for having a sensa huma, me lad. Our conflicted old planet > can use more of that. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 17:06:16 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:06:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <02bf01d8490f$76ca34d0$645e9e70$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat ? Adrian, thanks for having a sensa huma, me lad. Our conflicted old planet can use more of that. >?Not so much humor, as just observing human nature? Adrian Eh, those two things are synonymous. Our transcendent silliness is our trademark. As a species, to know us is to laugh at us. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 17:12:24 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:12:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (rhat we know of), > Dang, I hope they don't find out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 17:23:25 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:23:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Isn't a big intercontinental ballistic missile the ultimate in phallic symbols ? bill w On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (rhat we know of), >> > > Dang, I hope they don't find out. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 17:30:52 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 10:30:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:14 AM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (that we know of), >> > > Dang, I hope they don't find out. > Oh, it's fairly easy - once you have access to them (which is the real trick). They're big dumb objects, which can be fornicated with like any other. Though I am reminded of the response of a nuclear plant guard, when asked how long someone would survive if they went swimming in the pools that contain nuclear waste. The expected lifetime was in minutes, cause of death: bullets. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 17:31:44 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 11:31:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: No, this LDS church office building is bigger. I tried to find a picture where you could see the other ball, on the other side of the phallice, um I mean tower, but couldn't find one. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/church-office-building-ad7d3b0?lang=eng On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:25 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Isn't a big intercontinental ballistic missile the ultimate in phallic > symbols ? bill w > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (rhat we know of), >>> >> >> Dang, I hope they don't find out. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 17:53:58 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:53:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:38 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > No, this LDS church office building is bigger. > I tried to find a picture where you could see the other ball, on the other > side of the phallice, um I mean tower, but couldn't find one. > > https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/church-office-building-ad7d3b0?lang=eng > > Yeah, but it doesn't explode like nothing else. bill w > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:25 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Isn't a big intercontinental ballistic missile the ultimate in phallic >> symbols ? bill w >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (rhat we know of), >>>> >>> >>> Dang, I hope they don't find out. >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Tue Apr 5 18:07:58 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:07:58 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: OK, yea. that is very true. But like I said, I can't wait till Neuralink can rewire my orgasms for what I want to do, not what mother nature wants me to do. Then things like taking out the garbage will finally be fun. ;) On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:54 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:38 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> No, this LDS church office building is bigger. >> I tried to find a picture where you could see the other ball, on the >> other side of the phallice, um I mean tower, but couldn't find one. >> >> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/church-office-building-ad7d3b0?lang=eng >> >> Yeah, but it doesn't explode like nothing else. bill w > > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:25 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Isn't a big intercontinental ballistic missile the ultimate in phallic >>> symbols ? bill w >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (rhat we know of), >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dang, I hope they don't find out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 Apr 5 20:04:05 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:04:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Brent, the ideal brain for great orgasms exists already: it is in all women. One right after another. Screaming intensities. Of course it takes the right man to get those and most men aren't able or don't care. No wonder many women turn to other women for sex. No wonder many women prefer vibrators to guys. Some women take an hour of foreplay to get ready. Will most men be that patient? Ha! (what is it with the garbage? I am missing the joke) bill w On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:10 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > OK, yea. that is very true. > > But like I said, I can't wait till Neuralink can rewire my orgasms for > what I want to do, not what mother nature wants me to do. > Then things like taking out the garbage will finally be fun. ;) > > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:54 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:38 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> No, this LDS church office building is bigger. >>> I tried to find a picture where you could see the other ball, on the >>> other side of the phallice, um I mean tower, but couldn't find one. >>> >>> https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/church-office-building-ad7d3b0?lang=eng >>> >>> Yeah, but it doesn't explode like nothing else. bill w >> >> >> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:25 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Isn't a big intercontinental ballistic missile the ultimate in phallic >>>> symbols ? bill w >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:14 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:39 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> No one's having sex with nuclear bombs (rhat we know of), >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dang, I hope they don't find out. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 5 20:50:51 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:50:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003501d8492e$d67ed830$837c8890$@rainier66.com> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:10 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat > wrote: >>?But like I said, I can't wait till Neuralink can rewire my orgasms for what I want to do, not what mother nature wants me to do. Then things like taking out the garbage will finally be fun. ;) From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >? (what is it with the garbage? I am missing the joke) bill w Neeevah gonna happen, wouldn?t work Brent. Yahoos would soon be seen taking out the garbage, bringing it back in, taking it back out? Neighbors would say: there goes spike taking out the garbage off har har har if that lad doesn?t stop taking out the garbage off, he will go blind har har har and so forth. Imagine how many fights that could start. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 01:11:53 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 21:11:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] please don't eat the wallpaper In-Reply-To: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> References: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, 11:57 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Sheesh. > > > > > > It?s a roll of WALLPAPER fer cryin out loud! > That's the biggest fruit rollup I've ever seen. You only labelled it like that because you don't wanna share. Fine then, I'm keeping all the Tide Pods for myself. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23252 bytes Desc: not available URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 01:21:03 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 21:21:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 12:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Adrian?s law: The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology > is to make a sexual device or partner from it. > > Spike?s law: The second thing humans do with any powerful new technology > is to make a weapon from it. > >From this silliness I am amused that you seem to suggest that our first priority is pro- creation before destruction. I guess in some way there's hope. :) While i am a creation enthusiast, i have not spent the requisite 10,000 hours to consider myself a "pro" > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 03:32:28 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 23:32:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:16 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Rafal, > > You raise many interesting questions. > > I think when it comes to motivational questions, a general and > self-improving intelligence, will devote some resources to attempt to > learn, adapt and grow, as otherwise it will eventually be outclassed by > super intelligneces that do these things. > ### You are correct in the situation where competing AIs exist but the question we tried to address was the relative likelihood of dangerous vs. merely confused AI emerging from our attempts at creating the AI. I suggest that the first AIs we make will be weird and ineffectual but some could be dangerous to various degrees. If the first of these weird or dangerous AIs gains the ability to preempt the creation of additional independent AIs then the outcome could be something vastly different from what you outlined, locked in until an alien AI shows up and this alien AI could be also quite weird. In the absence of competition between AIs there is high likelihood of very unusual, deviant AI, since it is the Darwinian (or Lamarckian) competition that weeds out the weirdos. One-off creatures are immune from evolution. Eliezer pointed this out on this list decades ago, so I am not saying anything new. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 03:39:35 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 20:39:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] please don't eat the wallpaper In-Reply-To: References: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003701d84967$efa8b5e0$cefa21a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat ? >?That's the biggest fruit rollup I've ever seen. You only labelled it like that because you don't wanna share. >?Fine then, I'm keeping all the Tide Pods for myself. Go ahead Mike, I have my own tide pods which I shall devour with great relish! Oh wait, retract, that package also says it is harmful to swallow, damn. It even has a symbol for it, a new one: no devouring the tide pods. I am so disappointed that now I shall need to find something else for dinner, an alternative form of toxic food, such as Marie Calendar?s pot pies. (Full disclosure: I loooove Marie Calendar pot pies and eat them regularly.) Please, what kind of world have we created? In the old days, if someone had pica or other odd compulsion to eat weird things, it was their own damn responsibility to find a way to overpower the urge or live with the consequences if they chose to succumb to that harmful or fatal obsession. When did companies decide to take it upon themselves to urge consumers to merely purchase rather than literally ?consume? their non-edible products? Do they really need to remind us that tide pods really are not comestibles? Do we suppose they have all these absurd warnings on products sold in macho places like? Afghanistan or Brazil? I think they do not. Don?t we feel stupid for having invented such a society? I kinda do. I hope at some point we can drop this goofiness before some marketeer figures out a way to make actual edible tide pods, sheesh. Heeeeey, wait a minute. That?s a GREAT idea! That they need a warning and even an illiterate graphic code is indication that apparently it is a problem that kids eat tide pods. So? let?s make edible ones! There are detergents that are non-toxic. Note that I am not claiming they would be terribly effective in cleaning clothes, but think about it: edible tide pods, regular price of course, but cheap to make, packaged in those clever squishy water soluble packets! Oh we could make a buttload. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 03:47:14 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 23:47:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: <025d01d848f9$694b9fd0$3be2df70$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> <01ef01d8489b$6bb9f770$432de650$@rainier66.com> <025d01d848f9$694b9fd0$3be2df70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:28 AM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat > *Sent:* Tuesday, 5 April, 2022 12:00 AM > *Cc:* Rafal Smigrodzki ; ExI chat list < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> > > >?Plus, Wuhan virus being now an endemic disease, almost everybody will > eventually get infected, so your total death risk attributable to the virus > that you accumulate over your lifetime is almost constant (some caveats > apply), regardless of what you do (unless you engage in extreme lifelong > isolation from the society)?.Rafal > > > > Ja, I have a neighbor who is doing the isolation thing. I see her thru > the window but she hasn?t been outdoors (other than her back yard) in over > two years. That strategy has its own risks, greater in my opinion than > covid. The later variants really do appear to be much kinder and gentler > however. My brother?s friend caught recently, said it is like a ordinary > seasonal flu, except he can?t go back to work until he gets a negative > covid test. My brother, who was with him, is testing positive completely > without symptoms but he can?t go back to work either until he tests clean. > ### I agree, your death risk actually goes way up when isolated at home, compared to normal activity, due to various factors (social deprivation, diminished sun exposure, lack of exercise, diminished access to medical care), unless there is an actual dangerous epidemic (e.g. smallpox) going on. Covid, even the alpha variant, is much less dangerous than isolation, except for the very sick unvaccinated elderly, which is why the lockdowns were such an evil, immoral and stupid thing. BTW, why did they get tested? I think there is no good reason for Covid testing, except in some special situations. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 03:53:43 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 20:53:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005601d84969$e96a6f50$bc3f4df0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 12:26 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Adrian?s law: The first thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a sexual device or partner from it. Spike?s law: The second thing humans do with any powerful new technology is to make a weapon from it. >From this silliness I am amused that you seem to suggest that our first priority is pro- creation before destruction. I guess in some way there's hope. :) While i am a creation enthusiast, i have not spent the requisite 10,000 hours to consider myself a "pro" Eh, Mike, if my level of silliness is higher than normal, it is my coping mechanism: we had a death in the family Friday. I am taking it better than the others, because I knew it was coming and prepared myself whereas the others (his children) were deep in denial. I recently posted a link to a Nova program on addiction. I viewed every minute of it and paid close attention because the family member who passed was an addict (of sorts.) It wasn?t drugs that hooked him, it was eating. He ate himself into the ground, dug his own grave with his spoon. He knew what would happen, said so out loud in my presence. He didn?t want to die, but he just couldn?t stop overeating. So I have been pondering the matter, thinking about (and doing actual research) on addiction, not just drugs but including that, and perhaps Will is surprised to hear I did actual online research on LSD. That did give me a new outlook, so it was worth my time, for it explained about how that particular substance was used to help those addicted to other things, such as heroin and alcohol. Well OK then. The whole addiction to overeating thing is something I have never understood, but I have heard from people who suffer from it and since they know what it is, I will take their word for it: they just can?t stop overeating. This particular case was even worse, for he was severely type 2 diabetic. But the sugar cravings were so overwhelming he just couldn?t stay out of it, even knowing it would wreck him. Adios uncle, you are gone but never forgotten. On we go. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 04:08:36 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2022 21:08:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] now they ask In-Reply-To: References: <004801d8483a$f27ab260$d7701720$@rainier66.com> <006901d84854$be520a50$3af61ef0$@rainier66.com> <01ef01d8489b$6bb9f770$432de650$@rainier66.com> <025d01d848f9$694b9fd0$3be2df70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007501d8496b$fdb474e0$f91d5ea0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat ? ### I agree, your death risk actually goes way up when isolated at home, compared to normal activity, due to various factors (social deprivation, diminished sun exposure, lack of exercise, diminished access to medical care), unless there is an actual dangerous epidemic (e.g. smallpox) going on? Thanks for that Rafal. I agree to such an extent I must take special care to avoid confirmation bias. >?Covid, even the alpha variant, is much less dangerous than isolation, except for the very sick unvaccinated elderly, which is why the lockdowns were such an evil, immoral and stupid thing? Again I agree. I was an alpha catcher, hospital, very sick, about 8 weeks to full recovery in that case but certainly survivable. I am not elderly (at least from my point of view.) From my point of view, anyone who is older than I am is elderly. Anyone who is younger than I am is crazy. The rest of us are somewhere in between, neither of the above. >?BTW, why did they get tested? I think there is no good reason for Covid testing, except in some special situations. Rafal Ja, this is a special situation. My brother works installing safety equipment (ramps and rails for instance) in the homes of the elderly and infirm. In those special circumstances the rule is simple: when in doubt, check it out. Rafal, since we are on the topic of covid, there is an image that is burned into my retinas: It was a Chinese virologist who was an early catcher and tried to warn the world, but the government shut him down. I may be reading a lot into this photo, but I see a man who is diagnosing himself on his own deathbed, realizing in horror that even if he manages to survive the virus, he will not survive the commies. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 08:19:13 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 04:19:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Predictive Model of Death Message-ID: Years ago on this list we discussed the possibility that the Unfriendly AI might solve the protein folding problem and hire a contract lab to unknowingly generate the nanotech doomsday weapon. Those discussions were a bit nebulous, since we didn't know how difficult it would be to solve the protein folding problem and how it would fit on the scale of AI difficulty. Since last year we have a bit of clarity- the protein folding problem was solved by a AIphaFold, and perhaps unsurprisingly this AI is orders of magnitude too dumb to be Unfriendly. Despite its lack of agency, AlphaFold is approaching the level where it could be acutely dangerous to all of us. It will probably take only a few years before AlphaFold becomes powerful enough to create predictive models of large molecular assemblies, up to and including human cells. An easy to use molecular-scale predictive model of human cells would be an immensely powerful tool for biomedical research and engineering. The kind of work that today takes a small army of postdocs toiling for years in a well-equipped lab and spending millions of dollars could be doable by a grad student in a weekend. If that grad student had a grudge against the world and a death wish, here is how he could proceed to kill everybody: 1. Show up at work Saturday morning, when nobody is going to bug you about the stuff you're supposed to do. Use the AI to generate the sequences of a few thousand completely new deadly viruses. You could get creative and make a wide range of new viruses, mixing and matching diverse paths of infection, varying incubation periods, completely re-engineering every single protein including the replicases (so existing antivirals would be useless), making completely new capsid proteins to eliminate cross-reactivity with existing viruses, use various reservoirs in the body to assure long-term infection and prolonged infectivity (like HIV and herpes) but with a timed switch to an acute attack phase (to allow spread through asymptomatic individuals over long periods of time), use non-human vectors of infection (insects, like the dengue virus), non-human reservoirs including pets, farm animals and wildlife)... the possibilities are myriad. With powerful-enough software you might have it done by Saturday evening. 2. Synthesize the sequences in vitro. A few hours in a high-throughput industrial scale lab of the future might be enough and also fully automated, yielding a thousand samples of DNA in a few 384-well microplates. Pick up Sunday morning. No need to ask anybody for help. 3. Add the DNA to plates with a cell-free transcription and translation extract - an hour or less in a high-throughput pipetting robot. The cell-free extract would synthesize the RNA to control translation and to make the proteins needed to package the DNA. Most of the samples should generate infectious virions, although the titers would be low. Should be done by early Sunday afternoon. 4. Invert the plates and slam down in a shallow tray with PBS to pool the samples. 5 minutes. 5. Inhale, drink, inject the pooled viruses on Sunday evening. 6. Go home, sleep, wake up Monday. By then some of the viruses might already be present in your secretions. 7. Start traveling in the metro, all day long, changing lines. 8. Take a flight somewhere, keep riding the metro, preferably in a crowded large city on another continent. Sneeze and cough often, even if you don't need to, or talk a lot on the phone, to get more virus spread. 9. Keep repeating steps 7 and 8 until you drop dead, in the secure knowledge you killed everybody. If you were willing to spend more time making the viruses, you could do the wet part of the job in a home lab with handheld pipettes, and literally no other equipment, a long as you had access to the cell modeling software and the ability to order DNA synthesized and to order the cell-free extracts from a catalog. These steps are so obvious I don't think I am doing anything dangerous by outlining them. Of course, we don't have the predictive model of human cells yet, so the scenario is still fiction... but eventually it will be possible, maybe years before the AI singularity. Scary stuff. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 10:45:17 2022 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:45:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Predictive Model of Death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: YES. This combination of a moderate AI and some terrorist mindset of a human is a neglected aspect of "AI friendliness" and a bit closer to an actual realization. Still, I don't think everybody would die. 99% of all people on Earth, at the most. On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 10:22 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Years ago on this list we discussed the possibility that the Unfriendly AI > might solve the protein folding problem and hire a contract lab to > unknowingly generate the nanotech doomsday weapon. Those discussions were a > bit nebulous, since we didn't know how difficult it would be to solve the > protein folding problem and how it would fit on the scale of AI difficulty. > Since last year we have a bit of clarity- the protein folding problem was > solved by a AIphaFold, and perhaps unsurprisingly this AI is orders of > magnitude too dumb to be Unfriendly. > > Despite its lack of agency, AlphaFold is approaching the level where it > could be acutely dangerous to all of us. It will probably take only a few > years before AlphaFold becomes powerful enough to create predictive models > of large molecular assemblies, up to and including human cells. > > An easy to use molecular-scale predictive model of human cells would be an > immensely powerful tool for biomedical research and engineering. The kind > of work that today takes a small army of postdocs toiling for years in a > well-equipped lab and spending millions of dollars could be doable by a > grad student in a weekend. > > If that grad student had a grudge against the world and a death wish, here > is how he could proceed to kill everybody: > > 1. Show up at work Saturday morning, when nobody is going to bug you about > the stuff you're supposed to do. Use the AI to generate the sequences of a > few thousand completely new deadly viruses. You could get creative and make > a wide range of new viruses, mixing and matching diverse paths of > infection, varying incubation periods, completely re-engineering every > single protein including the replicases (so existing antivirals would be > useless), making completely new capsid proteins to eliminate > cross-reactivity with existing viruses, use various reservoirs in the body > to assure long-term infection and prolonged infectivity (like HIV and > herpes) but with a timed switch to an acute attack phase (to allow spread > through asymptomatic individuals over long periods of time), use non-human > vectors of infection (insects, like the dengue virus), non-human reservoirs > including pets, farm animals and wildlife)... the possibilities are myriad. > With powerful-enough software you might have it done by Saturday evening. > > 2. Synthesize the sequences in vitro. A few hours in a high-throughput > industrial scale lab of the future might be enough and also fully > automated, yielding a thousand samples of DNA in a few 384-well > microplates. Pick up Sunday morning. No need to ask anybody for help. > > 3. Add the DNA to plates with a cell-free transcription and translation > extract - an hour or less in a high-throughput pipetting robot. The > cell-free extract would synthesize the RNA to control translation and to > make the proteins needed to package the DNA. Most of the samples should > generate infectious virions, although the titers would be low. Should be > done by early Sunday afternoon. > > 4. Invert the plates and slam down in a shallow tray with PBS to pool the > samples. 5 minutes. > > 5. Inhale, drink, inject the pooled viruses on Sunday evening. > > 6. Go home, sleep, wake up Monday. By then some of the viruses might > already be present in your secretions. > > 7. Start traveling in the metro, all day long, changing lines. > > 8. Take a flight somewhere, keep riding the metro, preferably in a crowded > large city on another continent. Sneeze and cough often, even if you don't > need to, or talk a lot on the phone, to get more virus spread. > > 9. Keep repeating steps 7 and 8 until you drop dead, in the secure > knowledge you killed everybody. > > If you were willing to spend more time making the viruses, you could do > the wet part of the job in a home lab with handheld pipettes, and literally > no other equipment, a long as you had access to the cell modeling software > and the ability to order DNA synthesized and to order the cell-free > extracts from a catalog. > > These steps are so obvious I don't think I am doing anything dangerous by > outlining them. Of course, we don't have the predictive model of human > cells yet, so the scenario is still fiction... but eventually it will be > possible, maybe years before the AI singularity. > > Scary stuff. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Apr 6 12:48:37 2022 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:48:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <005601d84969$e96a6f50$bc3f4df0$@rainier66.com> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> <005601d84969$e96a6f50$bc3f4df0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <4884fcdca3126eb36bfef7bda11c8aac.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> On Tue, April 5, 2022 23:53, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > Eh, Mike, if my level of silliness is higher than normal, it is my coping > mechanism: we had a death in the family Friday. I am taking it better > than the others, because I knew it was coming and prepared myself whereas > the others (his children) were deep in denial. > > > > I recently posted a link to a Nova program on addiction. I viewed every > minute of it and paid close attention because the family member who passed > was an addict (of sorts.) It wasn?t drugs that hooked him, it was eating. > He ate himself into the ground, dug his own grave with his spoon. He > knew what would happen, said so out loud in my presence. He didn?t want > to die, but he just couldn?t stop overeating. Sympathy on the loss of your uncle, spike. It's a conundrum, how to fix that addiction. I have a couple of friends (married to each other) and they also are digging their graves with their teeth. They are diabetic, one now has kidney issues, they live in their recliner chairs at home unless they creep out to drive to a restaurant for a meal - often a couple times *per day*. They have other issues: balance (and falling) problems, joint troubles. Walking to the letter box to get the mail is an event worthy of note in an email! Now that I write this, I think of a third friend with this addiction, but her life is threatened now by cancer. :( I don't understand. Surely they know....... but denial is stronger than knowledge? Are we just lucky? I like food too, but not like that. Regards, MB From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 13:16:05 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:16:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] please don't eat the wallpaper In-Reply-To: <003701d84967$efa8b5e0$cefa21a0$@rainier66.com> References: <020301d848a1$04d6cc30$0e846490$@rainier66.com> <003701d84967$efa8b5e0$cefa21a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Every tube of skin ointment I have has 'Do not put in eyes' on it. There is a place in the delta here where pregnant women travel to to eat the clay there. I wonder if anyone has analyzed it. bill w On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:41 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat > *?* > > >?That's the biggest fruit rollup I've ever seen. You only labelled it > like that because you don't wanna share. > > > > >?Fine then, I'm keeping all the Tide Pods for myself. > > > > > > Go ahead Mike, I have my own tide pods which I shall devour with great > relish! > > > > Oh wait, retract, that package also says it is harmful to swallow, damn. > It even has a symbol for it, a new one: no devouring the tide pods. I am > so disappointed that now I shall need to find something else for dinner, an > alternative form of toxic food, such as Marie Calendar?s pot pies. (Full > disclosure: I loooove Marie Calendar pot pies and eat them regularly.) > > > > Please, what kind of world have we created? In the old days, if someone > had pica or other odd compulsion to eat weird things, it was their own damn > responsibility to find a way to overpower the urge or live with the > consequences if they chose to succumb to that harmful or fatal obsession. > When did companies decide to take it upon themselves to urge consumers to > merely purchase rather than literally ?consume? their non-edible products? > Do they really need to remind us that tide pods really are not > comestibles? Do we suppose they have all these absurd warnings on products > sold in macho places like? Afghanistan or Brazil? I think they do not. > > > > > > Don?t we feel stupid for having invented such a society? I kinda do. I > hope at some point we can drop this goofiness before some marketeer figures > out a way to make actual edible tide pods, sheesh. > > > > Heeeeey, wait a minute. That?s a GREAT idea! That they need a warning > and even an illiterate graphic code is indication that apparently it is a > problem that kids eat tide pods. So? let?s make edible ones! There are > detergents that are non-toxic. Note that I am not claiming they would be > terribly effective in cleaning clothes, but think about it: edible tide > pods, regular price of course, but cheap to make, packaged in those clever > squishy water soluble packets! Oh we could make a buttload. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23459 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 15:34:06 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 10:34:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction Message-ID: Addiction is not the same as having an irresistible impulse, a term created by defense lawyers). Such an impulse doesn't not exist, in my opinion. Yes, you can't stop things like vomiting. Truly that is involuntary. But can't stop lifting your arm to your mouth to eat or smoke? Nope. Not involuntary. Not close. So addicts are acting through voluntary behaviors. They can stop them any time they want to, as I did for smoking and drinking alcohol, but of course they don't want to. (Let's not even bother with 'gumption' and 'willpower'). I agree that withdrawal can be nasty. I had that once for Tramadol when the doctor screwed up (more likely his nurse). It was bad but not terrible. Ditto for smoking. I had no withdrawal from alcohol. So my point is that attaching the word 'addict' to a person seems to make us think that he is quite different from us, and he simply isn't. He can quit at any time. And calling a person a shopping addict or sex addict is simply absurd. The psychotics I have known were in full control of their behavior, but not their thinking (delusions and hallucinations). No irresistible impulses here though the disorder we used to call hebephrenic schizophrenia might qualify. I am not sure that there is a good use for the term addict. Maybe to describe people who do something too much, and that's all. So - let's call addictive behavior what it is. Voluntary. Addicts are people who won't, not can't, quit. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 16:49:58 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:49:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 11:36 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Addiction is not the same as having an irresistible impulse, a term > created by defense lawyers). Such an impulse doesn't not exist, in my > opinion. Yes, you can't stop things like vomiting. Truly that is > involuntary. > In your opinion. I also quit smoking because I decided to. It was difficult to deny myself a short-term satisfaction to realize a long term goal. I had the impulse control and resolve/willpower to change my habits. I would never assume that because I have resolve that everyone has it. I assume the conditioning to consume is endemic to those priviledged enough to afford whatever-the-hell is consumable. You might deny that addiction is real, but then you'll need another word to explain the behavior... and yeah, it's a complex compartmentalization to know the pattern is unhealthy but continue to choose self destruction. Is it so hard to understand? Depression and anxiety/fear about the state of the world... makes the shot of dopamine from each bite more rewarding than self-denial more attractive (addictive?) than it might be for those without depression or anxiety. Fixing this behavior is a mental and emotional health issue... one that likely cannot be solved without also undermining the basic imperatives of our consumer society. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 17:10:42 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:10:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I heartily disagree with this. Would you say someone with aphasia won't, not can't, speak? You act as if voluntary action is a given. Voluntary action requires a neurological event to take place. If the event cannot take place because the brain is broken, the motion CAN'T happen. Human will is not magic, it's a neurological action and it can be broken or slow or wonky just like any neurological action. On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 11:35 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Addiction is not the same as having an irresistible impulse, a term > created by defense lawyers). Such an impulse doesn't not exist, in my > opinion. Yes, you can't stop things like vomiting. Truly that is > involuntary. > > But can't stop lifting your arm to your mouth to eat or smoke? Nope. Not > involuntary. Not close. > > So addicts are acting through voluntary behaviors. They can stop them any > time they want to, as I did for smoking and drinking alcohol, but of course > they don't want to. (Let's not even bother with 'gumption' and > 'willpower'). > > I agree that withdrawal can be nasty. I had that once for Tramadol when > the doctor screwed up (more likely his nurse). It was bad but not > terrible. Ditto for smoking. I had no withdrawal from alcohol. > > So my point is that attaching the word 'addict' to a person seems to make > us think that he is quite different from us, and he simply isn't. He can > quit at any time. > > And calling a person a shopping addict or sex addict is simply absurd. > > The psychotics I have known were in full control of their behavior, but > not their thinking (delusions and hallucinations). No irresistible > impulses here though the disorder we used to call hebephrenic schizophrenia > might qualify. > > I am not sure that there is a good use for the term addict. Maybe to > describe people who do something too much, and that's all. > > So - let's call addictive behavior what it is. Voluntary. Addicts are > people who won't, not can't, quit. 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 Apr 6 17:13:15 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:13:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Like, William, I understand you're on the older side but the view your have is quite anti-scientific and based seemingly just on your own experience. Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard enough? It's fucking hard On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 1:10 PM Will Steinberg wrote: > I heartily disagree with this. Would you say someone with aphasia won't, > not can't, speak? You act as if voluntary action is a given. Voluntary > action requires a neurological event to take place. If the event cannot > take place because the brain is broken, the motion CAN'T happen. Human > will is not magic, it's a neurological action and it can be broken or slow > or wonky just like any neurological action. > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 11:35 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Addiction is not the same as having an irresistible impulse, a term >> created by defense lawyers). Such an impulse doesn't not exist, in my >> opinion. Yes, you can't stop things like vomiting. Truly that is >> involuntary. >> >> But can't stop lifting your arm to your mouth to eat or smoke? Nope. >> Not involuntary. Not close. >> >> So addicts are acting through voluntary behaviors. They can stop them >> any time they want to, as I did for smoking and drinking alcohol, but of >> course they don't want to. (Let's not even bother with 'gumption' and >> 'willpower'). >> >> I agree that withdrawal can be nasty. I had that once for Tramadol when >> the doctor screwed up (more likely his nurse). It was bad but not >> terrible. Ditto for smoking. I had no withdrawal from alcohol. >> >> So my point is that attaching the word 'addict' to a person seems to make >> us think that he is quite different from us, and he simply isn't. He can >> quit at any time. >> >> And calling a person a shopping addict or sex addict is simply absurd. >> >> The psychotics I have known were in full control of their behavior, but >> not their thinking (delusions and hallucinations). No irresistible >> impulses here though the disorder we used to call hebephrenic schizophrenia >> might qualify. >> >> I am not sure that there is a good use for the term addict. Maybe to >> describe people who do something too much, and that's all. >> >> So - let's call addictive behavior what it is. Voluntary. Addicts are >> people who won't, not can't, quit. bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 17:45:17 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 11:45:17 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:05 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > (what is it with the garbage? I am missing the joke) bill w > All the great funny stuff aside, it is just illustrating how important it is to distinguish between reality and knowledge of reality. Taking out the garbage is something that needs to be done, but because of our wiring it is hard to motivate ourselves to do it. We are controlled by the puppet strings wired up by mother nature. When we 'resist' temptation, we are fighting contradictory wirings, the lessor of two evils. But it would be far better to be able to cut these puppet string, completely, and rewire them to be consistent with what we want to want. That is true freedom. Then it would be far easier to motivate ourselves to do what we want to want, without needing to resist temptations to do otherwise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 19:05:22 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:05:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> >? On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction >?Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard enough? It's fucking hard Thanksgiving at my grandparents? house with my uncle was like Homer at the Frying Dutchman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k Oh that lad enjoyed his food. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 19:42:03 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:42:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: <4884fcdca3126eb36bfef7bda11c8aac.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> <005601d84969$e96a6f50$bc3f4df0$@rainier66.com> <4884fcdca3126eb36bfef7bda11c8aac.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 5:50 AM MB via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I don't understand. Surely they know....... but denial is stronger than > knowledge? > There is knowing, and then there is being able to act on it. When one is hungry to those levels, there is no "will yourself to not eat" or "just don't eat so much". Those mental states are simply not available in those moments, period. It is hard to imagine if one has not personally been there. This is the mental disconnect that you face here. It is not denial. If you think of it as a form of mind control being done by some entity other than the person (though still technically within the person), you won't be too far off. Note that the thing doing the controlling is not sentient and does not have access to the controlled person's knowledge - and thus, can be tricked. That's how to defeat it. For instance, there is "fill up on healthier foods"...for those people who know what healthier foods are, have access to them, and can afford them. That is how I got my weight down, after decades of being overweight while being bombarded with advice and methods that didn't work. I hear there may also be methods of eating that result in feeling full - and thereby turning off the overriding compulsion to eat - without having consumed as much. I've not yet found any that worked for me (other than filling up with water, but that only works temporarily, and has its own problems if done to excess). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 19:52:29 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 12:52:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Predictive Model of Death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:21 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > An easy to use molecular-scale predictive model of human cells would be an > immensely powerful tool for biomedical research and engineering. The kind > of work that today takes a small army of postdocs toiling for years in a > well-equipped lab and spending millions of dollars could be doable by a > grad student in a weekend. > > If that grad student had a grudge against the world and a death wish > It should be noted that our main protection, so far, is that those who have acquired the knowledge of how to do this (in more detail than your list), also know that killing the world is not an effective way to achieve whatever ends they desire. I emphasize: "so far". 5. Inhale, drink, inject the pooled viruses on Sunday evening. > Or drop them in public water supplies, such as reservoirs with roads that any member of the public can drive along and park on, taking in the view without looking suspicious - long enough to toss something in, unobserved. 9. Keep repeating steps 7 and 8 until you drop dead, in the secure > knowledge you killed everybody. > How can you be sure that some step of the software didn't secretly nanny-blab to the authorities on what you did, to let them come up with a cure shortly after you're dead? > These steps are so obvious I don't think I am doing anything dangerous by > outlining them. > I would rather say that these steps can be figured out by those capable of implementing them. They are decidedly not obvious to many who can't - including, I dare say, most relevant government regulators and law enforcement, who might find these emails and ask questions. They will forcefully disagree with "obvious", but are less likely to disagree with "can be easily figured out independently by those who could carry these steps out". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 20:16:39 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:16:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Paul vs Eliezer In-Reply-To: References: <021601d848a5$b7623520$26269f60$@rainier66.com> <025401d848f7$abfc99d0$03f5cd70$@rainier66.com> <029101d84909$9bc2fc50$d348f4f0$@rainier66.com> <005601d84969$e96a6f50$bc3f4df0$@rainier66.com> <4884fcdca3126eb36bfef7bda11c8aac.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <004701d849f3$39c03cd0$ad40b670$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat >?For instance, there is "fill up on healthier foods"...for those people who know what healthier foods are, have access to them, and can afford them. That is how I got my weight down, after decades of being overweight while being bombarded with advice and methods that didn't work? Good for you Adrian. Your cheering section back here is going wild. Without the pom poms and poodle skirts (oh mercy) but cheering just the same. If I need to know what it feel like to fight appetite, you are the guy I will ask and accept whatever you tell me, and believe it. There is another piece of information I should have included with that previous Thanksgiving post. My grandmother was a most excellent cook, oh my. Our family is from West Virginia, so of course she did West Virginia style cooking. Bacon was fried every day, but not just that, it was fried until it was as brittle as a crystal goblet. She started with the fattest fatback. All the grease was saved, poured off into a jar, and used later that day, not a drop was wasted ever. She fried the eggs in it, and fried the bread in it too (that was how they made toast before everybody had the sissy-prissy ?toasters? and the sissy-prissy ?electric power.? She had a toaster and electricity, but in her later years reverted to frying the bread in bacon grease. I gotta hand it to her, the food tasted good, and you didn?t even need to bother eating the stuff. You could put it in the blender on frappe, take a horse syringe and inject the damn stuff directly into your arteries, accomplish approximately the same end effect. Bacon grease was added to the mashed potatoes, straight fatback was added to the beans, bacon in everything. For reasons I have a hard time explaining, neither of my grandparents on that side were particularly overweight. My grandfather died in a traffic accident on the way home from work at age 74. My grandmother lived to be 87, with 85 of those years subsisting on about half of her calories from bacon grease. Shows to go ya: diet rules really do vary from one person to the next. My grandparents managed on the bacon grease diet, but their son didn?t. None of their three children did well on it. I didn?t have enough of it to make a good test. Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter and 4th of July feasts at their house was all I was able to enjoy usually. All of it was very very good. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 20:25:35 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:25:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Yes, food addiction is a crisis right now and yet people have decided to enable it with "healthy at any size" movements. I didn't see any "healthy at any dose of dope" movements around when I was a junkie... On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 3:06 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction > > > > >?Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal > responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to > speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard > enough? It's fucking hard > > > > > > > > Thanksgiving at my grandparents? house with my uncle was like Homer at the > Frying Dutchman: > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k > > > > Oh that lad enjoyed his food. > > > > 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 dsunley at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 20:35:26 2022 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:35:26 -0600 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Complex behaviors can be executed via psychological compulsion/"irresistible impulse". Handwashing being the canonical example. On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:27 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Yes, food addiction is a crisis right now and yet people have decided to > enable it with "healthy at any size" movements. I didn't see any "healthy > at any dose of dope" movements around when I was a junkie... > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 3:06 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *>?* *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction >> >> >> >> >?Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal >> responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to >> speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard >> enough? It's fucking hard >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanksgiving at my grandparents? house with my uncle was like Homer at >> the Frying Dutchman: >> >> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k >> >> >> >> Oh that lad enjoyed his food. >> >> >> >> spike >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 21:02:45 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:02:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction >?Yes, food addiction is a crisis right now and yet people have decided to enable it with "healthy at any size" movements. I didn't see any "healthy at any dose of dope" movements around when I was a junkie... Will, with that comment, I see you never lost your sensa huma. Good for you. Regarding that research I did after the previous discussion, I saw there is continued interest in microdosing. Well OK then, I have an idea. >From what I saw, there is a sugar cube involved somewhere: a drop of this substance is put on a sugar cube, the tripster devours the cube and off he goes to visit the colorful rooms and, etc. The microdosing experiment works like this. A drop of the test substance on each of two sugar cubes. You devour the one, I verify you are having a good time out there wherever you went. A rule of thumb holds that there are about 20 drops per milliliter, so about 50 ml is about a thousand drops and 50 liters is about a million drops. Micro means millionth. The sugar cube contains one drop. So? you devour one of the cubes, I fill a bathtub with about 50 liters of water, drop the other sugar cube in there, stir, wait a few minutes, take one drop of solution from the tub, drop that on a sugar cube, devour. I have a microdose, in an experiment that even I would consider sufficiently safe. I have serious doubts about whether a microdose would actually do anything more than the placebo, but hey, it?s safe and besides that, I can wax really creative when I want to. It is simultaneously a talent and a character flaw. None of this has anything to do with depression or addiction in my case, for I have been mercifully spared from both those maladies (depending on how I count my hopeless coffee addiction (which is complicated by the fact that it isn?t the usual suspect, caffeine which has me writhing helplessly in its gripping talons (for I can devour decaffeinated coffee and still get satisfaction (and do go thru a can once in a while just to remind myself that I can (I still prefer the real thing.))))) I do love my coffee, hot and black, nothing in it, just the pure rich substance which permeates the senses, awakens the enthusiasm for life, in a kind of a psychological bond of some sort. Coffee just tastes like morning to me, it smells like victory. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 21:27:30 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:27:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Wednesday, 6 April, 2022 2:03 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] addiction ?> On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction >?I do love my coffee, hot and black, nothing in it, just the pure rich substance which permeates the senses, awakens the enthusiasm for life, in a kind of a psychological bond of some sort. Coffee just tastes like morning to me, it smells like victory. spike A play by Thornton Wilder, Our Town, was one which resonated with me many years ago when I read it as part of a school assignment. The character Emily had perished, but some years later was given a vision or out-of-grave experience to visit her town. She is astonished at how she now sees life, every day a gift, filled with ordinary things, all of them as miraculous as her post-life vision. Eventually she is overcome with grief for having appreciated so little in her brief mortal existence. In the last scene Emily opines: ??I didn?t realize. So all that was going on and we never noticed. Take me back? up the hill? to my grave. But first, WAIT! One more look. ?Good-bye, good bye world. Good-bye Grovers Corners? Mama and Papa. Good bye to clocks ticking? and Mama?s sunflowers. And food and coffee? And new-ironed dresses and hot baths? and sleeping and waking up. Oh earth, you?re too wonderful for anybody to realize you. Emily turns to the stage manager: ?Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it? Every every minute?? Stage manager: No. The saints and poets maybe. They do some? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 21:32:30 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:32:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 22:06, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Regarding that research I did after the previous discussion, I saw there is continued interest in microdosing. Well OK then, I have an idea. > > > spike > _______________________________________________ One recent large trial says that microdosing produced the same effect as the placebo group. So the problem is to set the small dose large enough to just get a real effect, but not so large that it sends you off to the happy place. That level might vary between people with different histories. Tricky...... BillK From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 22:03:08 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 15:03:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009801d84a02$19b56d20$4d204760$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 22:06, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Regarding that research I did after the previous discussion, I saw there is continued interest in microdosing. Well OK then, I have an idea. > > > spike > _______________________________________________ >...One recent large trial says that microdosing produced the same effect as the placebo group... BillK Forget that then! That last placebo experiment went badly: my neck still hurts. BillK, I will cheerfully leave this line of scientific investigation to others. I am far too square. Tragically L7 they say. The mayor of Squaresville am I. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 22:53:57 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:53:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Will, I don't see any interruption in an addict's ability to control voluntary behavior - do you? Aphasia, ataxia etc. - all inabilities we understand somewhat and all not amenable to voluntary changes. Those are not good comparisons to addiction. As for willpower, that is a circular concept: if a person can do something or stop something, we say he has willpower. If he doesn't we say he has little will power. Totally circular. If you are suggesting that willpower can be measured some other, valid, way, and that can be traced to brain changes, then we have a different discussion. bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:12 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I heartily disagree with this. Would you say someone with aphasia won't, > not can't, speak? You act as if voluntary action is a given. Voluntary > action requires a neurological event to take place. If the event cannot > take place because the brain is broken, the motion CAN'T happen. Human > will is not magic, it's a neurological action and it can be broken or slow > or wonky just like any neurological action. > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 11:35 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Addiction is not the same as having an irresistible impulse, a term >> created by defense lawyers). Such an impulse doesn't not exist, in my >> opinion. Yes, you can't stop things like vomiting. Truly that is >> involuntary. >> >> But can't stop lifting your arm to your mouth to eat or smoke? Nope. >> Not involuntary. Not close. >> >> So addicts are acting through voluntary behaviors. They can stop them >> any time they want to, as I did for smoking and drinking alcohol, but of >> course they don't want to. (Let's not even bother with 'gumption' and >> 'willpower'). >> >> I agree that withdrawal can be nasty. I had that once for Tramadol when >> the doctor screwed up (more likely his nurse). It was bad but not >> terrible. Ditto for smoking. I had no withdrawal from alcohol. >> >> So my point is that attaching the word 'addict' to a person seems to make >> us think that he is quite different from us, and he simply isn't. He can >> quit at any time. >> >> And calling a person a shopping addict or sex addict is simply absurd. >> >> The psychotics I have known were in full control of their behavior, but >> not their thinking (delusions and hallucinations). No irresistible >> impulses here though the disorder we used to call hebephrenic schizophrenia >> might qualify. >> >> I am not sure that there is a good use for the term addict. Maybe to >> describe people who do something too much, and that's all. >> >> So - let's call addictive behavior what it is. Voluntary. Addicts are >> people who won't, not can't, quit. bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Wed Apr 6 22:58:41 2022 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:58:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction Message-ID: <8183A4F5-9751-4E68-B981-2E0C66DA5282@alumni.virginia.edu> This is a can of worms. I hesitate to speak up because it?s complicated, unresolved among subject matter experts to some degree, and hard to explain briefly. But how can I not speak up?my dissertation was on willpower, I?ve run two drugs treatment programs including one system of which I currently have clinical and administrative oversight, I teach and train on this subject, I?m abreast of the latest literature, I?ve worked in this field for 23 years professionally. Darin?s response is closest to correct. Will knows what he?s talking about too. The simplest way to describe what most people refer to as addiction is the inability to control use. There are people who functionally are unable to control their use of some chemicals despite negative consequences. Few would disagree about that. I see these people in my professional life and in my personal life, but maybe I?m unique in that sense. I?ll have to say trust me if you have no personal knowledge of this. Volkow from NIDA has been promoting the idea for a while now that the data support that addiction is a ?brain disease.? She means a disorder characterized an inability to stop use despite catastrophic consequences, in some cases, and caused by a combination of a faulty/hijkacked ?go? or reward system and a faulty ?stop? or control system. Some are born predisposed to this and others develop it solely from their environment (aka it?s learned). There are efforts to find biomarkers and genetic determinants of things like ?alcoholism.? The best we?ve found so far is twin and relative studies showing things for example like the risk of alcohol dependence in relatives is increased about 2-fold. This is the standard model in the field at the moment and promoted by NIDA. The contrasting view expressed at the start of this thread and pushed by plenty people may acknowledge some of the above but adds more weight to the willpower aspect in the end, dismissing so-called addiction as a failure of willpower or morals. There?s variations on this with some people being downright a-holes and extremely judgmental and others who leave a little room for a different perspective or experience outside their own e.g. ?I could stop but I could see how it might be harder for someone else, especially if they are dope sick.? Interestingly, at least to me, my colleague Carl Hart who I mentioned in another thread who wrote the book Drug Use for Grown Ups disagrees with NIDA on this one. He doesn?t put it all on willpower however. You can see his position in his TedTalks or read about it, but briefly I?ll quote from another article https://psmag.com/news/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease: ?Some people think that [the addiction-as-disease narrative]is more compassionate,? says Carl Hart, chair of the psychology department at Columbia University, who has spent decades studying how drugs affect the brain and behavior. Unfortunately, Hart writes, there?s not much to support the theory that addiction is a disease of the brain, and it has done more harm than good. The problem, as Hart explains, is that, if addiction arises from the effects of drugs on the brain, there are two paths to a solution: eliminate the drug from society (via restrictive policies and law enforcement) or look for a fix within the brain. But there are several problems with these approaches: 1. Relying on law enforcement to remove drugs from communities has led to rampant discrimination.Viewing drug use as a chronic medical condition has not prevented drug use from being a criminal justice problem. Roughly 20 percent of the people in our nation?s prisons and jails were locked up for non-violent drug offenses. And black Americans are significantly more likely than whites to be incarcerated for drug offenses, despite equivalent or sometimes lower rates of drug use. 2. The drugs themselves are probably not to blame.Indeed, drugs have the same neurochemical effects on the brain of every user, but only a small subset of people actually become addicted. And despite decades of research with increasingly powerful brain imaging technologies, there is still no scan that can discriminate between addicted and casual drug users, or make predictions about who will go on to abuse drugs. ?To date,? Hart writes, ?there has been no identified biological substrate to differentiate non-addicted persons from addicted individuals.? Rather than a disease, addiction is more likely a learned behavior. Both the NIDA position and Hart?s are supported by the data to some degree. We will need more data and more research before there is a consensus. The result lies probably somewhere in between. It may also be nuanced such that for some people it is more learned and for others more biological. It may be different for different chemicals. We just don?t know yet. An introductory article about the topic of things like porn addiction, shopping addiction etc is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5328289/#!po=1.38889 An important takeaway for you all: Addiction is treatable whatever the etiology. We can help people develop better self-control, develop better and alternative coping strategies, reduce risk of relapse, and find less risky ways of using drugs (like controlled drinking strategies) for people who don?t want to stop using. Ultimately Hart is correct too that most users of addictive substances don?t become addicted. So getting rid of or controlling access to substances that people enjoy is not a rational solution in my humble but expert opinion. We will as a society however need to help that small percentage that will have problems controlling their use despite negative consequences. Telling them to ?try harder,? humiliating them, and shaming them doesn?t work however. Embarrassingly, we tried that as a field in the 1970s and 80s. -Henry > On Apr 6, 2022, at 4:35 PM, Darin Sunley via extropy-chat wrote: > ? > Complex behaviors can be executed via psychological compulsion/"irresistible impulse". > > Handwashing being the canonical example. > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:27 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat wrote: >> Yes, food addiction is a crisis right now and yet people have decided to enable it with "healthy at any size" movements. I didn't see any "healthy at any dose of dope" movements around when I was a junkie... >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 3:06 PM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >? On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >>> Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard enough? It's fucking hard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanksgiving at my grandparents? house with my uncle was like Homer at the Frying Dutchman: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh that lad enjoyed his food. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 23:00:55 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:00:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike, on the advice of my doctor I began to use half decaf half caf. It tasted the same and it had no noticeable effect on me (I suspect bowel movements would be more difficult - nope). Then I went to 3/4 decaf with the same result. It does have an effect on blood pressure. (coffee without sugar -undrinkable) bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 4:30 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* spike at rainier66.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, 6 April, 2022 2:03 PM > *To:* 'ExI chat list' > *Cc:* spike at rainier66.com > *Subject:* RE: [ExI] addiction > > > > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction > > > > >?I do love my coffee, hot and black, nothing in it, just the pure rich > substance which permeates the senses, awakens the enthusiasm for life, in a > kind of a psychological bond of some sort. Coffee just tastes like morning > to me, it smells like victory. spike > > > > > > A play by Thornton Wilder, Our Town, was one which resonated with me many > years ago when I read it as part of a school assignment. The character > Emily had perished, but some years later was given a vision or out-of-grave > experience to visit her town. She is astonished at how she now sees life, > every day a gift, filled with ordinary things, all of them as miraculous as > her post-life vision. Eventually she is overcome with grief for having > appreciated so little in her brief mortal existence. In the last scene > Emily opines: > > > > ??I didn?t realize. So all that was going on and we never noticed. Take > me back? up the hill? to my grave. But first, WAIT! One more look. > > > > ?Good-bye, good bye world. Good-bye Grovers Corners? Mama and Papa. Good > bye to clocks ticking? and Mama?s sunflowers. And food and coffee? And > new-ironed dresses and hot baths? and sleeping and waking up. Oh earth, > you?re too wonderful for anybody to realize you. > > > > Emily turns to the stage manager: ?Do any human beings ever realize life > while they live it? Every every minute?? > > > > Stage manager: No. The saints and poets maybe. They do some? > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 23:02:19 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:02:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Just what theorist is claiming that there is such a thing as 'psychological compulsion' ? bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:37 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Complex behaviors can be executed via psychological > compulsion/"irresistible impulse". > > Handwashing being the canonical example. > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:27 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Yes, food addiction is a crisis right now and yet people have decided to >> enable it with "healthy at any size" movements. I didn't see any "healthy >> at any dose of dope" movements around when I was a junkie... >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 3:06 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *>?* *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >>> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal >>> responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to >>> speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard >>> enough? It's fucking hard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanksgiving at my grandparents? house with my uncle was like Homer at >>> the Frying Dutchman: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh that lad enjoyed his food. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 23:03:28 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:03:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: And yet, people with handwashing compulsions can change. It is not involuntary. bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:37 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Complex behaviors can be executed via psychological > compulsion/"irresistible impulse". > > Handwashing being the canonical example. > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:27 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Yes, food addiction is a crisis right now and yet people have decided to >> enable it with "healthy at any size" movements. I didn't see any "healthy >> at any dose of dope" movements around when I was a junkie... >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 3:06 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *>?* *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >>> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal >>> responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to >>> speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard >>> enough? It's fucking hard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanksgiving at my grandparents? house with my uncle was like Homer at >>> the Frying Dutchman: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh that lad enjoyed his food. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 23:10:19 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:10:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <8183A4F5-9751-4E68-B981-2E0C66DA5282@alumni.virginia.edu> References: <8183A4F5-9751-4E68-B981-2E0C66DA5282@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: In what way, Henry, is willpower not circular? And if addiction is a brain disease, how can talk therapy fix that? I strongly believe that the psychological addiction is way more powerful than the physical one. All behaviors of any kind come from the brain, I think, and if I acquire a liking for daffodils, my brain is changed, so just measuring brain changes shows very little, it seems to me. Maybe at best hypotheses to test bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:03 PM Henry Rivera via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This is a can of worms. > > I hesitate to speak up because it?s complicated, unresolved among subject > matter experts to some degree, and hard to explain briefly. But how can I > not speak up?my dissertation was on willpower, I?ve run two drugs treatment > programs including one system of which I currently have clinical and > administrative oversight, I teach and train on this subject, I?m abreast of > the latest literature, I?ve worked in this field for 23 years > professionally. > > Darin?s response is closest to correct. Will knows what he?s talking about > too. > > The simplest way to describe what most people refer to as addiction is the > inability to control use. There are people who functionally are unable to > control their use of some chemicals despite negative consequences. Few > would disagree about that. I see these people in my professional life and > in my personal life, but maybe I?m unique in that sense. I?ll have to say > trust me if you have no personal knowledge of this. > > Volkow from NIDA has been promoting the idea for a while now that the data > support that addiction is a ?brain disease.? She means a disorder > characterized an inability to stop use despite catastrophic consequences, > in some cases, and caused by a combination of a faulty/hijkacked ?go? or > reward system and a faulty ?stop? or control system. Some are born > predisposed to this and others develop it solely from their environment > (aka it?s learned). There are efforts to find biomarkers and genetic > determinants of things like ?alcoholism.? The best we?ve found so far is > twin and relative studies showing things for example like the risk of > alcohol dependence in relatives is increased about 2-fold. This is the > standard model in the field at the moment and promoted by NIDA. > > The contrasting view expressed at the start of this thread and pushed by > plenty people may acknowledge some of the above but adds more weight to the > willpower aspect in the end, dismissing so-called addiction as a failure of > willpower or morals. There?s variations on this with some people being > downright a-holes and extremely judgmental and others who leave a little > room for a different perspective or experience outside their own e.g. ?I > could stop but I could see how it might be harder for someone else, > especially if they are dope sick.? > > Interestingly, at least to me, my colleague Carl Hart who I mentioned in > another thread who wrote the book Drug Use for Grown Ups disagrees with > NIDA on this one. He doesn?t put it all on willpower however. You can see > his position in his TedTalks or read about it, but briefly I?ll quote from > another article > https://psmag.com/news/addiction-is-not-a-brain-disease: > ?Some people think that [the addiction-as-disease narrative]is more > compassionate,? says Carl Hart > , chair of the > psychology department at Columbia University, who has spent decades > studying how drugs affect the brain and behavior. Unfortunately, Hart writes > *, *there?s not much to support the theory that addiction is a disease of > the brain, and it has done more harm than good. > > The problem, as Hart explains, is that, if addiction arises from the > effects of drugs on the brain, there are two paths to a solution: eliminate > the drug from society (via restrictive policies and law enforcement) or > look for a fix within the brain. But there are several problems with these > approaches: > > 1. *Relying on law enforcement to remove drugs from communities has led > to rampant discrimination*.Viewing drug use as a chronic medical > condition has not prevented drug use from being a criminal justice problem. > Roughly 20 percent of > the people in our nation?s prisons and jails were locked up for non-violent > drug offenses. And black Americans are significantly more likely than > whites to be incarcerated for drug offenses, despite equivalent or > sometimes lower rates of drug use. > > 2. *The drugs themselves are probably not to blame*.Indeed, drugs have > the same neurochemical effects on the brain of every user, but only a small > subset of people actually become addicted. And despite decades of research > with increasingly powerful brain imaging technologies, there is still no > scan that can discriminate between addicted and casual drug users, or make > predictions about who will go on to abuse drugs. ?To date,? Hart writes, > ?there has been no identified biological substrate to differentiate > non-addicted persons from addicted individuals.? > > Rather than a disease, addiction is more likely a learned behavior. > Both the NIDA position and Hart?s are supported by the data to some > degree. We will need more data and more research before there is a > consensus. The result lies probably somewhere in between. It may also be > nuanced such that for some people it is more learned and for others more > biological. It may be different for different chemicals. We just don?t know > yet. > > An introductory article about the topic of things like porn addiction, > shopping addiction etc is > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5328289/#!po=1.38889 > > An important takeaway for you all: > Addiction is treatable whatever the etiology. We can help people develop > better self-control, develop better and alternative coping strategies, > reduce risk of relapse, and find less risky ways of using drugs (like > controlled drinking strategies) for people who don?t want to stop using. > > Ultimately Hart is correct too that most users of addictive substances > don?t become addicted. So getting rid of or controlling access to > substances that people enjoy is not a rational solution in my humble but > expert opinion. We will as a society however need to help that small > percentage that will have problems controlling their use despite negative > consequences. Telling them to ?try harder,? humiliating them, and shaming > them doesn?t work however. Embarrassingly, we tried that as a field in the > 1970s and 80s. > > -Henry > > On Apr 6, 2022, at 4:35 PM, Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ? > Complex behaviors can be executed via psychological > compulsion/"irresistible impulse". > > Handwashing being the canonical example. > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:27 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Yes, food addiction is a crisis right now and yet people have decided to >> enable it with "healthy at any size" movements. I didn't see any "healthy >> at any dose of dope" movements around when I was a junkie... >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 3:06 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *>?* *On Behalf Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >>> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Willpower is complicated. I do think addicts need personal >>> responsibility to heal, but so do stroke victims trying to relearn how to >>> speak or move their arm. Would you say they simply aren't trying hard >>> enough? It's fucking hard >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanksgiving at my grandparents? house with my uncle was like Homer at >>> the Frying Dutchman: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kzb6uf0U0k >>> >>> >>> >>> Oh that lad enjoyed his food. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 6 23:14:54 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:14:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction again Message-ID: Henry, in what way is addiction an inability? How do you measure that? All you can say is that they haven't done it, not that they can't. Involuntary elbow moving cigarette to mouth? Huh? No way. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 6 23:44:42 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 16:44:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <00e201d84a10$4a7bf740$df73e5c0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat ../ Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction >..Spike, on the advice of my doctor I began to use half decaf half caf. It tasted the same and it had no noticeable effect on me (I suspect bowel movements would be more difficult - nope). Then I went to 3/4 decaf with the same result. It does have an effect on blood pressure. (coffee without sugar -undrinkable) bill w Billw, sugar is bad for the teeth. Enjoyment of food is embedded deep within the psyche and we don?t really know how it works. I started with sugar in the coffee, but sometime in my teens phased it out, most likely from running out of sugar and still wanting coffee, finding out it was good without. Decaf: some joker at the office (not me this time, a different joker) started slyly mixing decaf with the regular and keeping it in the regular can, so no one knew he was doing it. Over a number of weeks, he kept making it lower and lower caffeine until we caught his ass. I was on travel when the whole thing came down, but the office people were not amused with his antics. We estimated the cost to the company in lost productivity and wrote him a bill. He didn?t pay. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 00:23:31 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 20:23:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <00e201d84a10$4a7bf740$df73e5c0$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> <00e201d84a10$4a7bf740$df73e5c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Today has had many synchronicities https://www.npr.org/2022/03/31/1090009509/addiction-how-to-break-the-cycle-and-find-balance ...crossed my feed today to echo this conversation. The other weird one was multiple references to waking up from a dream inside another dream (yeah, i know confirmation bias partially explains synchronicity, i guess as much as pareidolia explains being watched by faces that aren't there when you turn the lights on) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Apr 7 00:36:01 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:36:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> <00e201d84a10$4a7bf740$df73e5c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <010001d84a17$7587d8d0$60978a70$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction >? waking up from a dream inside another dream ? Mike Mike the big problem with this is that it is easy to count the number of times you wake, but difficult to know for sure how many times you went to sleep. For this reason, the number of doze-offs can be one or more greater than the number of wakes. Consequently you can never be completely sure you are woke now. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 01:03:14 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 21:03:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <010001d84a17$7587d8d0$60978a70$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> <00e201d84a10$4a7bf740$df73e5c0$@rainier66.com> <010001d84a17$7587d8d0$60978a70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 8:38 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *On Behalf Of *Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat > > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction > > >? waking up from a dream inside another dream ? Mike > > > > Mike the big problem with this is that it is easy to count the number of > times you wake, but difficult to know for sure how many times you went to > sleep. For this reason, the number of doze-offs can be one or more greater > than the number of wakes. Consequently you can never be completely sure > you are woke now. > I don't know if the dream is multitasking in another apartment of the simulation or one of the many worlds that disappears in a puff of math when nobody is left to dream the dream. I would like to know if there is any way to exert influence on the math. And suddenly I hear an echo of a past post predicting psy will not be proven in any reviewed publications this year, same as last, same as next... :) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 01:11:33 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 18:11:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I don't see any interruption in an addict's ability to control voluntary > behavior - do you? > Technically, an addict does lose the ability to control certain behaviors that are normally voluntary. (When these behaviors are not done under the addict's control, it is arguable that they are no longer "voluntary".) But this phrasing obscures the full truth. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 02:08:11 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:08:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: William--I assume you have access to a computer unless you dictate all your emails, so it should be easy enough for you to go to PubMed or Google Scholar and do some cursory research on the neurobiology of addiction. Honestly no offense but this isn't really a conversation that needs to be had; the science is there. It's like if you made a post asking how airplanes fly. We don't know how addiction works fully but we have simple answers and yours is a simple question. It's strange to me that we are even having this conversation on an email list that purports to be science-focused. To catch you up on some other stuff, spontaneous generation turned out to be wrong, microbes are real and cause disease (not miasma), and leeches are far less effective than you may have been led to believe. ;) On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Henry, in what way is addiction an inability? How do you measure that? > All you can say is that they haven't done it, not that they can't. > Involuntary elbow moving cigarette to mouth? Huh? No way. > > 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 Thu Apr 7 02:09:29 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:09:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are you suggesting that willpower isn't a neurological phenomenon? I don't even know how to address something so inane besides throwing some papers at you https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744643/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678016/ https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258884 https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190267278.001.0001/acprof-9780190267278-chapter-18 https://scholar.harvard.edu/kreimanlab/publications/neural-correlates-consciousness-perception-and-volition In short--yes, obviously, volition happens in the brain. Willpower is the ability to make yourself do something. That even is manifest in the tissue of the brain itself. Yes, it can be measured, though we may not completely agree on how, or have the right tools to do it perfectly yet. But it is clearly a neurophysical phenomenon. To believe anything else is some weird anti-scientific boomer bullshit, to speak frankly. On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Will, I don't see any interruption in an addict's ability to control > voluntary behavior - do you? Aphasia, ataxia etc. - all inabilities we > understand somewhat and all not amenable to voluntary changes. Those are > not good comparisons to addiction. As for willpower, that is a circular > concept: if a person can do something or stop something, we say he has > willpower. If he doesn't we say he has little will power. Totally > circular. If you are suggesting that willpower can be measured some other, > valid, way, and that can be traced to brain changes, then we have a > different discussion. bill w > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:12 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I heartily disagree with this. Would you say someone with aphasia won't, >> not can't, speak? You act as if voluntary action is a given. Voluntary >> action requires a neurological event to take place. If the event cannot >> take place because the brain is broken, the motion CAN'T happen. Human >> will is not magic, it's a neurological action and it can be broken or slow >> or wonky just like any neurological action. >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 11:35 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Addiction is not the same as having an irresistible impulse, a term >>> created by defense lawyers). Such an impulse doesn't not exist, in my >>> opinion. Yes, you can't stop things like vomiting. Truly that is >>> involuntary. >>> >>> But can't stop lifting your arm to your mouth to eat or smoke? Nope. >>> Not involuntary. Not close. >>> >>> So addicts are acting through voluntary behaviors. They can stop them >>> any time they want to, as I did for smoking and drinking alcohol, but of >>> course they don't want to. (Let's not even bother with 'gumption' and >>> 'willpower'). >>> >>> I agree that withdrawal can be nasty. I had that once for Tramadol when >>> the doctor screwed up (more likely his nurse). It was bad but not >>> terrible. Ditto for smoking. I had no withdrawal from alcohol. >>> >>> So my point is that attaching the word 'addict' to a person seems to >>> make us think that he is quite different from us, and he simply isn't. He >>> can quit at any time. >>> >>> And calling a person a shopping addict or sex addict is simply absurd. >>> >>> The psychotics I have known were in full control of their behavior, but >>> not their thinking (delusions and hallucinations). No irresistible >>> impulses here though the disorder we used to call hebephrenic schizophrenia >>> might qualify. >>> >>> I am not sure that there is a good use for the term addict. Maybe to >>> describe people who do something too much, and that's all. >>> >>> So - let's call addictive behavior what it is. Voluntary. Addicts are >>> people who won't, not can't, quit. bill w >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 04:50:03 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 00:50:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <010001d84a17$7587d8d0$60978a70$@rainier66.com> References: <000a01d849e9$4488e720$cd9ab560$@rainier66.com> <007001d849f9$aa824ca0$ff86e5e0$@rainier66.com> <008901d849fd$1fa91d80$5efb5880$@rainier66.com> <00e201d84a10$4a7bf740$df73e5c0$@rainier66.com> <010001d84a17$7587d8d0$60978a70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:38 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Consequently you can never be completely sure you are woke now. > > > ### Indeed, no matter how woke you are, you can never be sure that the criteria for being woke enough haven't progressed since you checked them, potentially making you wow-just-wow and bannable. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 14:15:17 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:15:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adrian, what would those behaviors be? I have never heard of such a thing. I do not accept that voluntary control of anything is lost except in brain damage. bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 8:13 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I don't see any interruption in an addict's ability to control voluntary >> behavior - do you? >> > > Technically, an addict does lose the ability to control certain behaviors > that are normally voluntary. (When these behaviors are not done under the > addict's control, it is arguable that they are no longer "voluntary".) But > this phrasing obscures the full truth. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 14:21:16 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:21:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Whether an abstraction such as intelligence or will power exists is entirely up to how we want to define the term. I could say the same thing about demon possession or souls. Show me how to objectively measure it and I can accept it into science. Then we can relate it to brain functions. So far, I can still see only a circular concept. "Willpower is what is happening when we make ourselves do something." That is simply an embarrassment. bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 9:17 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Are you suggesting that willpower isn't a neurological phenomenon? I > don't even know how to address something so inane besides throwing some > papers at you > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744643/ > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678016/ > https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258884 > > https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190267278.001.0001/acprof-9780190267278-chapter-18 > > https://scholar.harvard.edu/kreimanlab/publications/neural-correlates-consciousness-perception-and-volition > > In short--yes, obviously, volition happens in the brain. Willpower is the > ability to make yourself do something. That even is manifest in the tissue > of the brain itself. Yes, it can be measured, though we may not completely > agree on how, or have the right tools to do it perfectly yet. But it is > clearly a neurophysical phenomenon. To believe anything else is some weird > anti-scientific boomer bullshit, to speak frankly. > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 6:55 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Will, I don't see any interruption in an addict's ability to control >> voluntary behavior - do you? Aphasia, ataxia etc. - all inabilities we >> understand somewhat and all not amenable to voluntary changes. Those are >> not good comparisons to addiction. As for willpower, that is a circular >> concept: if a person can do something or stop something, we say he has >> willpower. If he doesn't we say he has little will power. Totally >> circular. If you are suggesting that willpower can be measured some other, >> valid, way, and that can be traced to brain changes, then we have a >> different discussion. bill w >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 12:12 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I heartily disagree with this. Would you say someone with aphasia >>> won't, not can't, speak? You act as if voluntary action is a given. >>> Voluntary action requires a neurological event to take place. If the event >>> cannot take place because the brain is broken, the motion CAN'T happen. >>> Human will is not magic, it's a neurological action and it can be broken or >>> slow or wonky just like any neurological action. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 11:35 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Addiction is not the same as having an irresistible impulse, a term >>>> created by defense lawyers). Such an impulse doesn't not exist, in my >>>> opinion. Yes, you can't stop things like vomiting. Truly that is >>>> involuntary. >>>> >>>> But can't stop lifting your arm to your mouth to eat or smoke? Nope. >>>> Not involuntary. Not close. >>>> >>>> So addicts are acting through voluntary behaviors. They can stop them >>>> any time they want to, as I did for smoking and drinking alcohol, but of >>>> course they don't want to. (Let's not even bother with 'gumption' and >>>> 'willpower'). >>>> >>>> I agree that withdrawal can be nasty. I had that once for Tramadol >>>> when the doctor screwed up (more likely his nurse). It was bad but not >>>> terrible. Ditto for smoking. I had no withdrawal from alcohol. >>>> >>>> So my point is that attaching the word 'addict' to a person seems to >>>> make us think that he is quite different from us, and he simply isn't. He >>>> can quit at any time. >>>> >>>> And calling a person a shopping addict or sex addict is simply absurd. >>>> >>>> The psychotics I have known were in full control of their behavior, but >>>> not their thinking (delusions and hallucinations). No irresistible >>>> impulses here though the disorder we used to call hebephrenic schizophrenia >>>> might qualify. >>>> >>>> I am not sure that there is a good use for the term addict. Maybe to >>>> describe people who do something too much, and that's all. >>>> >>>> So - let's call addictive behavior what it is. Voluntary. Addicts are >>>> people who won't, not can't, quit. bill w >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 14:27:09 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:27:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To catch you up on some other stuff, spontaneous generation turned out to be wrong, microbes are real and cause disease (not miasma), and leeches are far less effective than you may have been led to believe. ;) will I do not respond well to patronizing or sarcasm. I do have a suggestion as to where you could put a leech. You are a pretty smart fellow but may be behind in genetic epistemology. Just because some term is used to apply to people does not make it exist, or if it exists, a useful term. LIke the other - show me that it isn't circular and we can have a conversation, not the start of a flaming war. bill w On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 9:10 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > William--I assume you have access to a computer unless you dictate all > your emails, so it should be easy enough for you to go to PubMed or Google > Scholar and do some cursory research on the neurobiology of addiction. > > Honestly no offense but this isn't really a conversation that needs to be > had; the science is there. It's like if you made a post asking how > airplanes fly. We don't know how addiction works fully but we have simple > answers and yours is a simple question. > > It's strange to me that we are even having this conversation on an email > list that purports to be science-focused. > > To catch you up on some other stuff, spontaneous generation turned out to > be wrong, microbes are real and cause disease (not miasma), and leeches are > far less effective than you may have been led to believe. ;) > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Henry, in what way is addiction an inability? How do you measure that? >> All you can say is that they haven't done it, not that they can't. >> Involuntary elbow moving cigarette to mouth? Huh? No way. >> >> bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 15:29:42 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:29:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I sent you like 5 papers dude On Thu, Apr 7, 2022, 10:28 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > To catch you up on some other stuff, spontaneous generation turned out to > be wrong, microbes are real and cause disease (not miasma), and leeches are > far less effective than you may have been led to believe. ;) will > > I do not respond well to patronizing or sarcasm. I do have a suggestion > as to where you could put a leech. You are a pretty smart fellow but may > be behind in genetic epistemology. Just because some term is used to apply > to people does not make it exist, or if it exists, a useful term. LIke the > other - show me that it isn't circular and we can have a conversation, not > the start of a flaming war. bill w > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 9:10 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> William--I assume you have access to a computer unless you dictate all >> your emails, so it should be easy enough for you to go to PubMed or Google >> Scholar and do some cursory research on the neurobiology of addiction. >> >> Honestly no offense but this isn't really a conversation that needs to be >> had; the science is there. It's like if you made a post asking how >> airplanes fly. We don't know how addiction works fully but we have simple >> answers and yours is a simple question. >> >> It's strange to me that we are even having this conversation on an email >> list that purports to be science-focused. >> >> To catch you up on some other stuff, spontaneous generation turned out to >> be wrong, microbes are real and cause disease (not miasma), and leeches are >> far less effective than you may have been led to believe. ;) >> >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2022, 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> Henry, in what way is addiction an inability? How do you measure that? >>> All you can say is that they haven't done it, not that they can't. >>> Involuntary elbow moving cigarette to mouth? Huh? No way. >>> >>> bill w >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 15:56:54 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 08:56:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:17 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I do not accept that voluntary control of anything is lost except in brain > damage. bill w > Then think of addiction as a form of brain damage. A slow, subtle, insidious sort that typically takes months to develop - as opposed to sudden trauma like getting a railroad spike through the brain - but still. Given the brain structure changes and neurochemicals involved, there are quite a few people who consider addiction to be a form of brain damage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Apr 7 16:01:43 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:01:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> When someone believes they are taking a medication but it is really an inert pill we know it is called a placebo, and notable benefits (or harm) is placebo effect. The opposite would be if someone is given a genuine medication without their knowledge. Does that have a name? Sure I know it is unethical as a medical practice, but I am imagining this happening in families where the perpetrator is not a doctor. I am also thinking about if a doctor tells the patient only part of the story on a medication. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 16:46:50 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:46:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Spike - Some years ago I saw a study where the average doctor knew only seven drugs fully: all their effects and side effects. When I get a script I Google it and find out for myself. Many doctors prescribe pills because that's what the usual medical practice is, and are afraid if they don't. bill w On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:15 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > When someone believes they are taking a medication but it is really an > inert pill we know it is called a placebo, and notable benefits (or harm) > is placebo effect. > > > > The opposite would be if someone is given a genuine medication without > their knowledge. Does that have a name? Sure I know it is unethical as a > medical practice, but I am imagining this happening in families where the > perpetrator is not a doctor. I am also thinking about if a doctor tells > the patient only part of the story on a medication. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 16:52:54 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:52:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adrian, I do not have any trouble with what you say. 'Damage' might not be the right word, but I dunno. In extreme cases we are sure brain damage exists. In others the brain tests might not be anywhere near the averages, but to call the differences wrong, bad, a disease, is quite another. I am still waiting for those voluntary behaviors you say are lost. bill w On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:04 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:17 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I do not accept that voluntary control of anything is lost except in >> brain damage. bill w >> > > Then think of addiction as a form of brain damage. A slow, subtle, > insidious sort that typically takes months to develop - as opposed to > sudden trauma like getting a railroad spike through the brain - but still. > > Given the brain structure changes and neurochemicals involved, there are > quite a few people who consider addiction to be a form of brain damage. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 16:58:19 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:58:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:54 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I am still waiting for those voluntary behaviors you say are lost. bill w > Depends on the addiction. In the case of overeating, "not eating" is a behavior that you might call voluntary but is no longer an option when hungry. Note that "eating" is far more complex than simply "move hand bearing food to mouth". It also involves obtaining food, possibly cooking food, and so on. So, trying to think of it as a simplistic single action that is performed without conscious intent, will confuse and mislead you because it isn't that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Apr 7 16:59:11 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 09:59:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: References: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002001d84aa0$cea40c70$6bec2550$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Thursday, 7 April, 2022 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction again >?Spike - Some years ago I saw a study where the average doctor knew only seven drugs fully: all their effects and side effects. When I get a script I Google it and find out for myself. Many doctors prescribe pills because that's what the usual medical practice is, and are afraid if they don't. bill w OK but here is where I was going with it. Imagine a long-married older couple who quarrel a lot but are mutually dependent in multiple ways, so on they go. Wife goes to doctor, who suggests SSRI, serotonin reuptake inhibitor, Zoloft for instance, she takes it, realizes makes her a generally more agreeable person. But her husband is still an asshole, so she gets an idea. Since she cooks for the bastard every day, she gets her doctor to prescribe more, then uses her own pills on him by grinding and putting them in his greasy fried breakfast where he would never notice the taste. A doctor won?t do that, but a weary and beleaguered wife might. Now the husband is getting medications he doesn?t know about. Does he get the same effect from it? And what if? she likes what it does and starts giving him more than she takes? Then he gets religion. Uh oh, too much. Now she stops. Does he apostatize? How he hell does that work? spike On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 11:15 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: When someone believes they are taking a medication but it is really an inert pill we know it is called a placebo, and notable benefits (or harm) is placebo effect. The opposite would be if someone is given a genuine medication without their knowledge. Does that have a name? Sure I know it is unethical as a medical practice, but I am imagining this happening in families where the perpetrator is not a doctor. I am also thinking about if a doctor tells the patient only part of the story on a medication. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 18:14:56 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 19:14:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:16, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > When someone believes they are taking a medication but it is really an inert pill we know it is called a placebo, and notable benefits (or harm) is placebo effect. > > The opposite would be if someone is given a genuine medication without their knowledge. Does that have a name? Sure I know it is unethical as a medical practice, but I am imagining this happening in families where the perpetrator is not a doctor. I am also thinking about if a doctor tells the patient only part of the story on a medication. > > spike > _______________________________________________ Note: Sometimes the placebo will cause a cure even when the patient is told that it is only a sugar pill. The opposite is called a nocebo. This is when the patient is so fearful of the proposed treatment that the sugar pill causes worse symptoms to appear. The mind has powerful effects! Covert medication is a legal minefield but is sometimes allowed when it is in the patient's best interest. The assumption is that the covert medication will be monitored by a doctor and will work as expected. If not, then the doctor will prescribe a different medication. Quote: It is well documented that placebo represents Pavlovian conditioned reflexes activated by positive anticipation of healing. The pain-relieving effects of placebo are due to a psychical activation of the endogenous opioid-serotonergic, pain-inhibitory descending system. The opposite effect is nocebo, a term introduced in 1961 by Kennedy. Nocebo-effects similarly appears to be produced by conditioned reflexes, but are activated by negative expectations. Nocebo-stimuli, such as anxiety, fear, mistrust and doubt, may reduce a placebo-effect; it may induce negative side-effects in placebo-treatment; it may produce new aversive symptoms; and it may reverse symptoms from positive ones to negative ones (e.g. revert an analgesic response to hyperalgesia). BillK From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 18:33:16 2022 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 04:33:16 +1000 Subject: [ExI] addiction again In-Reply-To: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> References: <004801d84a98$c73b8240$55b286c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 02:15, spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > When someone believes they are taking a medication but it is really an > inert pill we know it is called a placebo, and notable benefits (or harm) > is placebo effect. > > > > The opposite would be if someone is given a genuine medication without > their knowledge. Does that have a name? Sure I know it is unethical as a > medical practice, but I am imagining this happening in families where the > perpetrator is not a doctor. I am also thinking about if a doctor tells > the patient only part of the story on a medication. > Not quite what you asked for, but there is the concept of the nocebo, or negative placebo effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo With antipsychotics, we sometimes see patients who don?t believe they are unwell, don?t want to take the drug, believe it is at best inert and at worst harmful. They improve despite these beliefs if they take it. They then don?t acknowledge that the improvement has anything to do with the drug, even if they relapse when they stop it and improve again when they restart it multiple times. It can be quite frustrating for family members and members of the treating team. > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 7 20:10:55 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 15:10:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adrian, to get a bit technical about your idea, the problem is one of inhibition. The lateral hypothalamus starts the eating process and the ventral stops it. I very much doubt if overeating is brain damage to the ventral hypothalamus though this is possible (very unlikely, as deep as it is in the brain and as common as over eating is - I think the inhibition is just overridden). In fact you could look at all addictions as problems of lacking inhibition. Or overriding it. Bill w On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:01 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:54 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I am still waiting for those voluntary behaviors you say are lost. bill w >> > > Depends on the addiction. In the case of overeating, "not eating" is a > behavior that you might call voluntary but is no longer an option when > hungry. > > Note that "eating" is far more complex than simply "move hand bearing food > to mouth". It also involves obtaining food, possibly cooking food, and so > on. So, trying to think of it as a simplistic single action that is > performed without conscious intent, will confuse and mislead you because it > isn't that. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Fri Apr 8 04:33:24 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 00:33:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Predictive Model of Death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:54 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > It should be noted that our main protection, so far, is that those who > have acquired the knowledge of how to do this (in more detail than your > list), also know that killing the world is not an effective way to achieve > whatever ends they desire. > ### Yes, indeed, since making deadly viruses still takes a lot of work, knowledge and money, the kind of people who can make the viruses (i.e. well-organized and well-funded) tend to be also uninterested in just killing themselves and everybody else. But this may not be true in the future, when viruses could be created with trivial effort by a lone individual, which includes deranged and suicidal individuals, as in the scenario I outlined. -------------------- > > 5. Inhale, drink, inject the pooled viruses on Sunday evening. >> > > Or drop them in public water supplies, such as reservoirs with roads that > any member of the public can drive along and park on, taking in the view > without looking suspicious - long enough to toss something in, unobserved. > ### Traveling the world while exhaling a thousand deadly viruses should work better. If you release the viruses in one city only, there is a chance that the bio-defence agencies might deploy thermonuclear weapons early enough to prevent spread. ------------------------------- > > How can you be sure that some step of the software didn't secretly > nanny-blab to the authorities on what you did, to let them come up with a > cure shortly after you're dead? > ### Yes, complete and worldwide surveillance of all assets capable of generating viruses might be our only way of delaying this catastrophe. I will be starting another thread about how we could actually defend ourselves against it in the post-singularity future. ----------------------------------- > > >> These steps are so obvious I don't think I am doing anything dangerous by >> outlining them. >> > > I would rather say that these steps can be figured out by those capable of > implementing them. They are decidedly not obvious to many who can't - > including, I dare say, most relevant government regulators and law > enforcement, who might find these emails and ask questions. They will > forcefully disagree with "obvious", but are less likely to disagree with > "can be easily figured out independently by those who could carry these > steps out". > ### If biohazard-suited enforcers with machine guns break down your door at night and drag you away to indefinite detention and questioning, it might be because you read this thread. Readers beware! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 15:47:06 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 08:47:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Predictive Model of Death In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 7, 2022, 9:36 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > ### If biohazard-suited enforcers with machine guns break down your door > at night and drag you away to indefinite detention and questioning, it > might be because you read this thread. > For better or for worse, they know I'm on their side. I'm registered on their lists, have taken DoD R&D grant money (for rockets rather than biotechnology, but still), and so on. Just so you know my perspective on this. With that perspective, I say: they are perpetually too busy to enforce down to that level, and will be for at least decades. It might not be comfortable relying on resource shortages to save your hide, but Congressional (and equivalent in other countries) penny pinching is the most reliable of several factors preventing the above scenario from coming to pass. I say "reliable" as in, whatever you fear, you can trust that there will remain those in government with authority over the budget who don't want to spend money on anything, instead pressing to lower taxes, at least on their favored donors. They may not have absolute authority but they keep spending far short of the level that would be needed for the above. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 18:28:16 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 14:28:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What an overly simplified view of the brain, as if parts of the brain don't send signals to other parts. Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? You are wrong. The science is the opposite of what you say. You are not a neuroscientist, are you? An addiction researcher? Is there any reason your intuition and personal single anecdote would possibly be something I would consider true over literal thousands of pieces of vetted scientific research? Blows my mind. Not sure how you are usually into science but not for this one thing. On Thu, Apr 7, 2022, 4:12 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Adrian, to get a bit technical about your idea, the problem is one of > inhibition. The lateral hypothalamus starts the eating process and the > ventral stops it. I very much doubt if overeating is brain damage to the > ventral hypothalamus though this is possible (very unlikely, as deep as it > is in the brain and as common as over eating is - I think the inhibition is > just overridden). In fact you could look at all addictions as problems of > lacking inhibition. Or overriding it. Bill w > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:01 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:54 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> I am still waiting for those voluntary behaviors you say are lost. bill >>> w >>> >> >> Depends on the addiction. In the case of overeating, "not eating" is a >> behavior that you might call voluntary but is no longer an option when >> hungry. >> >> Note that "eating" is far more complex than simply "move hand bearing >> food to mouth". It also involves obtaining food, possibly cooking food, >> and so on. So, trying to think of it as a simplistic single action that is >> performed without conscious intent, will confuse and mislead you because it >> isn't that. >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 18:39:47 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 13:39:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I only asked one thing: define willpower such that it is not a circular concept. Every science demands concepts that can be measured objectively and so far, no one has offered a way to measure willpower that is objective and scientific. That's all. I am not sure what you think I am wrong about. I think I am being more scientific on this issue than any of you. Did you notice that Henry did not respond to my invitation to define the term noncircularly, to invent a word. And he wrote a dissertation on it. ??? What's up with that? Maybe he realized that it WAS circular. I simplified hunger starting and stopping for Adrian. Did not attempt to write a book on it. bill w On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 1:30 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What an overly simplified view of the brain, as if parts of the brain > don't send signals to other parts. > > Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? You are wrong. The science is > the opposite of what you say. You are not a neuroscientist, are you? An > addiction researcher? Is there any reason your intuition and personal > single anecdote would possibly be something I would consider true over > literal thousands of pieces of vetted scientific research? > > Blows my mind. Not sure how you are usually into science but not for this > one thing. > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022, 4:12 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Adrian, to get a bit technical about your idea, the problem is one of >> inhibition. The lateral hypothalamus starts the eating process and the >> ventral stops it. I very much doubt if overeating is brain damage to the >> ventral hypothalamus though this is possible (very unlikely, as deep as it >> is in the brain and as common as over eating is - I think the inhibition is >> just overridden). In fact you could look at all addictions as problems of >> lacking inhibition. Or overriding it. Bill w >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 12:01 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 9:54 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I am still waiting for those voluntary behaviors you say are lost. >>>> bill w >>>> >>> >>> Depends on the addiction. In the case of overeating, "not eating" is a >>> behavior that you might call voluntary but is no longer an option when >>> hungry. >>> >>> Note that "eating" is far more complex than simply "move hand bearing >>> food to mouth". It also involves obtaining food, possibly cooking food, >>> and so on. So, trying to think of it as a simplistic single action that is >>> performed without conscious intent, will confuse and mislead you because it >>> isn't that. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 20:38:26 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 16:38:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 2:30 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > What an overly simplified view of the brain, as if parts of the brain > don't send signals to other parts. > > Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? You are wrong. The science is > the opposite of what you say. You are not a neuroscientist, are you? An > addiction researcher? Is there any reason your intuition and personal > single anecdote would possibly be something I would consider true over > literal thousands of pieces of vetted scientific research? > > Blows my mind. Not sure how you are usually into science but not for this > one thing. > ### I agree with you, Will. I also think it is useful to look at the problem from a practical, problem-solving point of view. The most important characteristic of addiction is that it is a behavior that the addict continues despite knowing that it has significant deleterious effects on his life. One could quibble about what is "deleterious" but in practical terms addiction is the kind of behavior that just doesn't stop easily despite significant cost. If it stops after a stern talking-to, it's definitely not an addiction. If it continues after losing your job, money, spouse, after a jail time, being beaten up and going through rehab, yes, might be an addiction. Researchers will look at the neurological correlates of the behaviors but us practical people mostly ask "How do I fix the problem?" People with a moralistic bent may talk about blame, guilt, shame, weakness, lack of willpower, etc. but again, what counts is the practical outcome - Is he still doing after whatever intervention you tried? Did he stop after the priest chewed him out? Did he get better with the help of suboxone or methadone? Did CBT help? What counts is how many people avoided being homeless and overdosing in an alley or getting lung cancer, whether by pulling themselves up by their own moral bootstraps or by mere nicotine patch. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 8 23:26:46 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:26:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Will someone tell me what I am wrong about? It does not take a high school degree, much less being a neuroscientist or physician or addiction treatment specialist to understand circularity, and until someone comes up with a noncircular definition of willpower (which would not make me wrong) I rest my case. Neither of you is a psychologist, I might add. bill w On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:40 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 2:30 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> What an overly simplified view of the brain, as if parts of the brain >> don't send signals to other parts. >> >> Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? You are wrong. The science is >> the opposite of what you say. You are not a neuroscientist, are you? An >> addiction researcher? Is there any reason your intuition and personal >> single anecdote would possibly be something I would consider true over >> literal thousands of pieces of vetted scientific research? >> >> Blows my mind. Not sure how you are usually into science but not for >> this one thing. >> > > ### I agree with you, Will. > > I also think it is useful to look at the problem from a practical, > problem-solving point of view. The most important characteristic of > addiction is that it is a behavior that the addict continues despite > knowing that it has significant deleterious effects on his life. One could > quibble about what is "deleterious" but in practical terms addiction is the > kind of behavior that just doesn't stop easily despite significant cost. If > it stops after a stern talking-to, it's definitely not an addiction. If it > continues after losing your job, money, spouse, after a jail time, being > beaten up and going through rehab, yes, might be an addiction. Researchers > will look at the neurological correlates of the behaviors but us practical > people mostly ask "How do I fix the problem?" > > People with a moralistic bent may talk about blame, guilt, shame, > weakness, lack of willpower, etc. but again, what counts is the practical > outcome - Is he still doing after whatever intervention you tried? Did he > stop after the priest chewed him out? Did he get better with the help of > suboxone or methadone? Did CBT help? > > What counts is how many people avoided being homeless and overdosing in an > alley or getting lung cancer, whether by pulling themselves up by their own > moral bootstraps or by mere nicotine patch. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Sat Apr 9 01:41:48 2022 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 21:41:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *William Flynn Wallace said: * *Did you notice that Henry did not respond to my invitation to define the term noncircularly, to invent a word. And he wrote a dissertation on it. ??? What's up with that? * Relax, I?m just busy working more than full-time with 2 kids, an active social life, and many extracurricular activities. *William Flynn Wallace said: * *As for willpower, that is a circular concept: if a person can do something or stop something, we say he has willpower. If he doesn't we say he has little will power. Totally circular. If you are suggesting that willpower can be measured some other, valid, way, and that can be traced to brain changes, then we have a different discussion. bill w* *Henry, is willpower not circular? * I don?t know if I can define it noncircularly. Oxford says ?control exerted to do something or restrain impulses.? Willpower is hard to measure. Granted. And not mapped to a specific set of neurons. Nevertheless, in cognitive science models, the data support a place for it or something like it, call it what you want. Here?s a generous amount of quotes from my dissertation which was entitled Cognitive Science, Autoregulation, and Psychotherapy: Advancing Dialectical Behavior Therapy. It may read as disjointed between some paragraphs as these were pulled from various places in the 108 page document. --- One aspect of the self has been labeled the *executive function or control* by theorists from a variety of fields. This aspect of the self controls volition, which includes choosing, deciding, initiating action, and self-regulation (Baumeister, 2000). The allocation of attention and executive control is at the center of current understanding of how information is selected by agents from the environment. In current theories of human cognition, executive control is associated with limited-capacity attention-demanding mental processing (Remington, 2000). Common cognitive acts such as retrieving items from memory, reading, and problem-solving require executive control, in contrast to perceptual processes and motor behaviors whose processing is independent of executive control and is sometimes automatic. In North America in the late 19th century, William James devised a theory of will or voluntary action. His theory held that of many possible choices an agent has, the one that is chosen is the one that has been attended to more than others. James added that choice or will expends energy through the process of holding the idea attended to in consciousness while inhibiting other ideas. Thus James concluded that volition occurs by attending to those ideas that assist one in achieving one?s goal (which incidentally expends energy) (Hergenhahn, 1997). Research and theory on self-regulation frequently involve cognitive models which hypothesize an architecture or structure that can describe key processes and the flow of information between them. One shortcoming of such inquiry is that researchers cannot assess these knowledge structures directly. Thus researchers must infer processing structures based on behavior and verbal report. These conceptualizations of mental activity occur at the metacognitive level of understanding, if they occur at all, in individuals. Metacogntion is one?s appraisal of one?s own cognitive processes including beliefs about self-control of cognition (Matthews et al., 2000). Self-regulation may be viewed as comprising metacognitive knowledge and skills, as well as motivational, emotional, and behavioral monitoring and control processes (Demetriou, 2000). There is support for the notion that specific areas of the brain are allocated for self-regulation. That is, the brain appears to be functionally designed to self-regulate. Specifically, the frontal lobes are hypothesized to be responsible for executive control of novel responses and self-awareness (Stuss, 1992; Thatcher, 1994) which in turn influence self-regulation (Case, 1992). Additionally, the nucleus ambiguus of the medulla has been found to be particularly relevant to children?s ability to regulate emotional arousal, respond to stress, and focus attention (Bornstein & Suess; Porges, Doussard-Roosevelt, Portales, & Greenspan; Stifter & Fox all as cited in Blair, 2002). Other researchers have found, through neuroanatomical examination of neural pathways, anatomical evidence for functional links between prefrontal executive processes and limbic emotional-motivational aspects of functioning (Derryberry & Tucker; LeDoux both as cited in Blair, 2002). Research in this area is ongoing and currently relies heavily on deficit studies. For example, a novel research area in psychology, social cognitive neuroscience, currently is examining social behavior from the perspective of the brain using brain-imaging techniques and studies of people with brain injuries. While having localized functions of the brain is an appealing concept, a complete understanding of the brain will also be able to account for holistic integration of certain operations. Such a model has yet to be proposed. There can be multiple factors that affect a failure in self-regulation. Consider alcohol consumption, which reduces self-awareness or monitoring ability (Hull, 1981) which then results in an inability to grasp the implications of current actions for the future (Baumeister, 1991). Additionally, the more one drinks, the harder it becomes to monitor how much one is drinking. When one is aware of standards and is monitoring one?s behavior in relation to those standards, yet the person still feels unable to behave in accord with those standards, the person can be understood as lacking sufficient strength or willpower to autoregulate (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). Poor self-efficacy can also affect one?s belief that one can successfully cope or recover after a lapse or relapse in self-regulation (Marlatt, Baer, & Quigley, 1995). Inadequate strength can be chronic, temporary, or the result of an overpowering response. Chronic weakness of will could be considered a character trait that exists as a natural variation among people. Temporary weakness of will would exist as a function of fatigue or stress and would represent abnormal functioning relative to a person?s average abilities when not fatigued or under stress. When one?s willpower is overridden by an overpowering demand or response, a person has no choice but to succumb. An example of this mechanism in action is a person falling asleep against their will. Such mechanisms probably also play a role in someone who is substance dependent who fails to self-regulate. *The Limited-Resource Model* Current research in the area of self-regulation frequently cites the social-cognitive model suggested by Baumeister and Heatherton (1996), which emphasizes goals, plans, and personal beliefs over situational contingencies and reinforcers, physiological processes, and unconscious psychodynamic motives (Heatherton & Baumeister, 1996). In their model, under-regulation occurs because of deficient standards, inadequate monitoring, or inadequate strength. Strength, here, is akin to willpower. Misregulation occurs because of false assumptions or misdirected efforts and an unwarranted emphasis on emotion. Baumeister and Heatherton propose that the evidence supports a strength (limited resource) model of autoregulation and suggest that people often give in when losing control. The basic understanding of the model is that there is a finite reservoir of energy that powers volitional and other executive control functions at an individual level. As a result of using this reservoir, self-regulation becomes increasingly difficult for the individual, over a short period of time. *Testing the Limited Resource Model* Control or volition is involved in specific, crucial mental functions like making choices, taking responsibility, initiating and inhibiting behavior, as well as making plans of action and carrying out those plans (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). The view that acts of volition draw on a limited resource is widely labeled the limited resource model of self-regulation. However, it has been named the ego depletion model by Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice (1998). (Interestingly, Freud?s conception of the mind, an ego that required energy to resist the id and superego (1923/1961a, 1933/1961b), used a similar conceptualization.) This model implies that, as a result of using this limited resource, one act of volition will have a detrimental impact on subsequent acts of volition. Baumeister?s theoretical model views the self?s executive function like a muscle that can become tired after some exertion. In his quest to understand the mechanisms through which self-regulatory change is achieved, he has stumbled upon the remarkable finding that many of the self?s executive functions operate using the same energy source. In a series of experiments, Baumeister and colleagues found that a second act of self-control was impaired following an initial act of self-control (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). That is, consecutive yet apparently unrelated acts of self-control were carried out by participants, and after the second act, participants showed signs of impairment. A brief synopsis of the series of experiments follows. First, participants were asked to regulate their feelings and facial expressions while watching a sad film clip. Following this task, participants? physical stamina was measured with a handgrip endurance task. The task called for participants to override muscular pain and fatigue in the hand by persisting at squeezing a grip. It was found that participants? physical stamina decreased after the movie task compared to a control group who watched the film clip without attempting to amplify or stifle their emotions and facial expressions, whose stamina did not change when measured before and after watching the clip (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). Next, thought control was measured with the white bear suppression task borrowed from Wegner, Schneider, Carter, and White (1987). This task simply involves asking participants to try not to think about a white bear while researchers measure and record their thoughts, which participants are asked to verbalize in stream of consciousness form. After doing this for several minutes, the participants were given anagrams to solve. Unknown to participants, the anagrams were unsolvable, and the task was thus a measurement of persistence at a frustrating task. Compared to participants who were asked to list their thoughts and participants who heard mention of a white bear but were not asked to control their thoughts, participants who had been given the thought suppression task gave up sooner on the anagram task. Thus, it is hypothesized, using cognitive resources to suppress thoughts made it more difficult to subsequently persist at a seemingly unrelated task. In the third part of this series of experiments, attempted thought regulation with the white bear task impaired participants? subsequent ability to regulate how much they smiled and laughed while watching a comedy video during which they were instructed to suppress all displays of amusement. A later experiment by Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, and Tice (1998) continued the exploration of the limited resource approach by focusing on impulse control. Participants, who were asked to not eat for three hours prior to arriving for the experiment, were placed in a room filled with the aroma of freshly baked chocolate chip cookies and seated in front of a table filled with these cookies, other chocolate candies, and a bowl of radishes. One group was told that they would only be eating the radishes, and another was told that they could eat the cookies and candies. In both groups, participants were left alone in the room for five minutes, where they presumably struggled with the temptation to eat the cookies and candies. After the five minutes, the food was cleared away and participants were asked to work at some geometric figure-tracing puzzles. Again, the puzzles were actually unsolvable to test persistence at a frustrating task. This task to measure frustration tolerance and regulatory persistence was adapted from Glass and Singer (1972) and Feather (1961). Participants who were told they could eat only radishes (while resisting the temptation to eat appetizing foods) gave up faster on the unsolvable puzzles than did a group who could eat the chocolate and cookies and a group that was given no food at all. This series of experiments together suggests that the same resource was used by the executive function for suppressing thoughts, regulating emotions, physical stamina, persistence when frustrated, and resisting temptation/impulse control. Furthermore, this resource was found to be surprisingly limited: Five minutes of resisting temptation to eat chocolate and cookies and instead forcing oneself to eat radishes was enough to reduce persistence at unsolvable puzzles by more than half (10 minutes). Subsequently, Muraven (1998b), as cited in Baumeister (2000), carried out this experiment with children. He modified the experiment by changing the temptation to an attractive toy and the persistence/frustration task to drawing a line slowly. The result was a similar effect as found in adults, namely, that compared to children allowed to play with the attractive toy, children resisting that temptation were poorer at the persistence/frustration task. After this intriguing series of experiments, Baumeister set out to explore what other aspects of self-control used this same limited resource. Using a cognitive dissonance procedure from Linder, Cooper, and Jones (1967) to draw upon an act of choice, Baumeister et al. (1998) asked participants in a high-choice condition to make a speech in favor of a tuition increase, which was contrary to the attitudes of the participants, if they so desired. The participants in this high-choice condition were told that their compliance would be appreciated but that the ultimate decision was theirs. In contrast, participants in a low-choice condition were told to make the same speech in favor of tuition increase but were given no choice as to their compliance. Following the speech, participants were given unsolvable geometric puzzles to measure persistence. One control group received only the puzzles and did not have to make a speech. Compared to participants who did not make a speech and those who made the speech in the low-choice condition, participants in the high-choice condition gave up on the unsolvable puzzles significantly faster. To assess whether this difference was a result of a counter-attitudinal choice rather than a choice concordant with one?s attitudes, a fourth group was asked to make a speech in favor of minimizing tuition increases if they so desired (under high choice). Persistence in this group was similar to the other high-choice group--they gave up on the unsolvable puzzles significantly faster than the other groups. This leads to the inference that the act of choice itself depletes the resource rather than the consonance or dissonance with the opinion one endorses. The idea that making choices depletes the same resource involved in other acts of self-regulation was additionally supported by Baumeister, Twenge, and Tice (1998) as cited in Baumeister (2000). Participants, believing they were participating in market research were instructed to make many choices among products and told that they should choose products appealing to them as they would receive one of the products at the end of the exercise. A control group was only instructed to rate the products, not choose amongst them. A second task for all participants was to drink an aversive mix of unsweetened Kool-Aid mixed half with water and half with vinegar. Participants were given the incentive of payment of five cents per ounce and asked to consume as much as they could. It was understood that because the drink tasted bad participants would have had to exert self-control to consume very much. Again, it appeared that making a choice depleted the resource such that participants in the choice group drank significantly fewer ounces than participants in the rate-only group. To look at how initiative was affected by depleting this limited resource, Baumeister et al. (1998) conducted a second part to the cognitive dissonance experiment. First, participants were given a task that encouraged the formation of a habit and the subsequent overriding of that habit. Specifically, they were told to cross out every instance of the letter ?e? in a page of text, followed by crossing out every instance of the letter ?e? on another page of text unless the ?e? was next to or two letters away from another vowel. A control group had to complete 3-digit arithmetic problems. Next, participants had to watch a movie (an unchanging image of a laboratory wall) as long as necessary until they felt they had fully grasped it. To measure passivity, the researchers borrowed the following procedure from Allison and Messick (1988) as cited in Baumeister, Muraven and Tice (2000). Half the participants were instructed to hold a button down to keep the movie going while half were told that the movie would continue until they took the initiative to press the button. Results showed that participants were more passive in their initiative to stop the film if they completed the ?e? task compared to doing the math problems. Participants in the resource-depleted group watched the boring movie longer. Thus depleting the limited resource appears to affect initiative/volition as well as self-control and choice. Next, Muraven and Collins (1999), as cited in Baumeister (2000), applied this line of research to adult male social drinkers. Half of the participants were instructed to suppress thoughts about a white bear, and half did not go through any initial depletion task. Next all participants were primed for a driving simulation task for which there would be a prize for good performance. However, before doing the driving simulation, participants were offered an opportunity to drink beer. Muraven and Collins were speculating that participants would be sufficiently motivated to not drink the beer or to limit their drinking because of the prize offered for good performance on the driving simulation task. They found that participants who engaged in the thought suppression task were less able to regulate their drinking as they consumed more and become more impaired than the other group. The dependent variable in many of these studies was persistence at unsolvable puzzles, and it can be argued that effective self-regulation entails ceasing effort (disengagement) from the unsolvable to conserve resources because persistence will not lead to success. This interpretation however is unlikely since there were no self-reports that indicated that any participants recognized that the puzzles were unsolvable. Nevertheless, Baumeister et al. (1998) conducted a third part to their experiment to solidify their interpretation whereby persistence at solvable anagrams was measured. The anagram problems did require effort and overriding although solvable and thus could be viewed as a self-regulation (persistence) measure. Baumeister et al. found that depleting the limited resource prior to working at the solvable anagrams did impair persistence. This, unfortunately, did not clarify the issue of conservation versus depletion, as one interpretation of this finding is that participants were trying to conserve their limited resource by stopping rather than just being unable to exert any self-regulation after the first act of depletion. That is, there may be conservation at work rather than exhaustion based on the third part of the experiment (Baumeister, 2000). To date, few reliable instruments exist to measure the construct of autoregulation, and I know of no validated instruments claiming to measure autoregulatory resource depletion as this area is just developing. Nevertheless, instruments that attempt to measure aspects of autoregulation exist. Schwarzer, Manfred, and Schmitz (1999), for example, have developed a scale of ?post-intentional self-regulation? whose items are designed to reflect attention-regulation and emotion-regulation. Sample items include, ?I can concentrate on one activity for a long time, if necessary,? and ?When I worry about something, I cannot concentrate on an activity.? (Interested readers can find Schwarzer?s scale on-line.) Development of such instruments will be necessary to improve treatment protocols affected by autoregulation depletion. Integration of cognitive science's resource-capacity research findings into the standards of clinical psychology, might significantly improve client care. On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:27 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Will someone tell me what I am wrong about? It does not take a high > school degree, much less being a neuroscientist or physician or addiction > treatment specialist to understand circularity, and until someone comes up > with a noncircular definition of willpower (which would not make me wrong) > I rest my case. Neither of you is a psychologist, I might add. > > bill w > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 3:40 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 2:30 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> What an overly simplified view of the brain, as if parts of the brain >>> don't send signals to other parts. >>> >>> Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? You are wrong. The science >>> is the opposite of what you say. You are not a neuroscientist, are you? >>> An addiction researcher? Is there any reason your intuition and personal >>> single anecdote would possibly be something I would consider true over >>> literal thousands of pieces of vetted scientific research? >>> >>> Blows my mind. Not sure how you are usually into science but not for >>> this one thing. >>> >> >> ### I agree with you, Will. >> >> I also think it is useful to look at the problem from a practical, >> problem-solving point of view. The most important characteristic of >> addiction is that it is a behavior that the addict continues despite >> knowing that it has significant deleterious effects on his life. One could >> quibble about what is "deleterious" but in practical terms addiction is the >> kind of behavior that just doesn't stop easily despite significant cost. If >> it stops after a stern talking-to, it's definitely not an addiction. If it >> continues after losing your job, money, spouse, after a jail time, being >> beaten up and going through rehab, yes, might be an addiction. Researchers >> will look at the neurological correlates of the behaviors but us practical >> people mostly ask "How do I fix the problem?" >> >> People with a moralistic bent may talk about blame, guilt, shame, >> weakness, lack of willpower, etc. but again, what counts is the practical >> outcome - Is he still doing after whatever intervention you tried? Did he >> stop after the priest chewed him out? Did he get better with the help of >> suboxone or methadone? Did CBT help? >> >> What counts is how many people avoided being homeless and overdosing in >> an alley or getting lung cancer, whether by pulling themselves up by their >> own moral bootstraps or by mere nicotine patch. >> >> Rafal >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Sat Apr 9 02:46:38 2022 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 22:46:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I totally agree with Rafal here. The theory and models are academic. The semantics are fun for us high IQ folks (meaning, I'd like to think, pretty much everyone on this list). But there are serious public health implications. *William Flynn Wallace said: * *And if addiction is a brain disease, how can talk therapy fix that? I strongly believe that the psychological addiction is way more powerful than the physical one. All behaviors of any kind come from the brain, I think, and if I acquire a liking for daffodils, my brain is changed, so just measuring brain changes shows very little, it seems to me. Maybe at best hypotheses to test * Talk therapy can help someone make new connections, develop hope which is important, adapt to their environment, manage themselves better, learn from their past, prepare for the future, live in the moment better. The brain changes all the time. Learning is literal connections being made. Talk therapy changes the brain. So how are we to think about addiction? The best resolution to the conflict of ?addiction is a (brain) disease? vs., as bill w put it, ?Let's call addictive behavior what it is. Voluntary,? is from Dr. Kevin McCauley who has a documentary entitled *Pleasure Unwoven. *He says addiction begins as a disorder of genes and pleasure and ends as a ?disorder of choice? because one's decisions are motivated by abnormally intense cravings to seek out, obtain, and use substances in a brain with an altered reward pathway. Here?s a less-than-5-minute clip on ?hypofrontality in addiction? from this documentary. https://youtu.be/jkOl7QIXxlQ I hope you all will watch it. I find his argument compelling and have yet to ask Carl Hart what he thinks about the orbital frontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex scans referenced. As always, this is an area where more research needs to be done I?m sure. Practically speaking, this perspective I hope leads to compassion for people struggling with addiction so we can help to reduce the harm that comes to them and help provide treatment. -Henry On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:39 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 2:30 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> What an overly simplified view of the brain, as if parts of the brain >> don't send signals to other parts. >> >> Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? You are wrong. The science is >> the opposite of what you say. You are not a neuroscientist, are you? An >> addiction researcher? Is there any reason your intuition and personal >> single anecdote would possibly be something I would consider true over >> literal thousands of pieces of vetted scientific research? >> >> Blows my mind. Not sure how you are usually into science but not for >> this one thing. >> > > ### I agree with you, Will. > > I also think it is useful to look at the problem from a practical, > problem-solving point of view. The most important characteristic of > addiction is that it is a behavior that the addict continues despite > knowing that it has significant deleterious effects on his life. One could > quibble about what is "deleterious" but in practical terms addiction is the > kind of behavior that just doesn't stop easily despite significant cost. If > it stops after a stern talking-to, it's definitely not an addiction. If it > continues after losing your job, money, spouse, after a jail time, being > beaten up and going through rehab, yes, might be an addiction. Researchers > will look at the neurological correlates of the behaviors but us practical > people mostly ask "How do I fix the problem?" > > People with a moralistic bent may talk about blame, guilt, shame, > weakness, lack of willpower, etc. but again, what counts is the practical > outcome - Is he still doing after whatever intervention you tried? Did he > stop after the priest chewed him out? Did he get better with the help of > suboxone or methadone? Did CBT help? > > What counts is how many people avoided being homeless and overdosing in an > alley or getting lung cancer, whether by pulling themselves up by their own > moral bootstraps or by mere nicotine patch. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 10:11:53 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 11:11:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Discovered - the farthest galaxy at 13.5 billion light-years away Message-ID: Scientists have discovered the farthest galaxy at 13.5 billion light-years away It may be home to ?Population III? stars. By Christopher McFadden Apr 07, 2022 Quotes: An international team of scientists has just spotted the most distant galaxy to date. Called HD1, the galaxy candidate is about 13.5 billion light-years away and formed just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This is interesting in and of itself, but it gets better; it may be home to "Population III" stars. These are postulated to be the first kind of stars ever born which have never been observed, until possibly now. ?The very first population of stars that formed in the universe were more massive, more luminous, and hotter than modern stars,? Pacucci says. ?If we assume the stars produced in HD1 are these first, or Population III, stars, then its properties could be explained more easily. In fact, Population III stars are capable of producing more UV light than normal stars, which could clarify the extreme ultraviolet luminosity of HD1.? Further data will also need to be obtained using the James Webb Space Telescope, the research team to verify its distance from Earth. But, if current calculations prove correct, HD1 will be the most distant, and oldest, galaxy ever recorded. ----------------- BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 13:04:49 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 08:04:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Too much sugar for a dime, Henry. Thanks, and I will be reading it with interest. I do believe that I am vindicated about the circularity. What clinical psych does helps many millions including addicts, but cannot be looked on as scientific experiments because of measurement issues. I once thought of investigating jealousy. Then I wondered how I would measure it and came up with nothing more than asking people how they feel. Just as with love, people have different ideas about jealousy and when for example a person puts down that situation A would make them feel jealous to a number 7 on a 10 point scale, another person's 7 might be quite different. Way too subjective for me. So what's next? Intuition? I think that's just the unconscious talking to you, no different from what it does all day long (and night?). Another concept impossible to define. Think of this; "Did you use your intuition?" Both Yes and NO answers could be elicited from people whose brains were doing the same thing. Shall we try love? Still waiting to hear what I am wrong about. bill w On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 9:48 PM Henry Rivera via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I totally agree with Rafal here. The theory and models are academic. The > semantics are fun for us high IQ folks (meaning, I'd like to think, pretty > much everyone on this list). But there are serious public health > implications. > > *William Flynn Wallace said: * > > *And if addiction is a brain disease, how can talk therapy fix that? I > strongly believe that the psychological addiction is way more powerful than > the physical one. All behaviors of any kind come from the brain, I think, > and if I acquire a liking for daffodils, my brain is changed, so just > measuring brain changes shows very little, it seems to me. Maybe at best > hypotheses to test * > > > > Talk therapy can help someone make new connections, develop hope which is > important, adapt to their environment, manage themselves better, learn from > their past, prepare for the future, live in the moment better. The brain > changes all the time. Learning is literal connections being made. Talk > therapy changes the brain. > > > > So how are we to think about addiction? > > > > The best resolution to the conflict of ?addiction is a (brain) disease? > vs., as bill w put it, ?Let's call addictive behavior what it is. > Voluntary,? is from Dr. Kevin McCauley who has a documentary entitled *Pleasure > Unwoven. *He says addiction begins as a disorder of genes and pleasure > and ends as a ?disorder of choice? because one's decisions are motivated by > abnormally intense cravings to seek out, obtain, and use substances in a > brain with an altered reward pathway. Here?s a less-than-5-minute clip on > ?hypofrontality in addiction? from this documentary. > https://youtu.be/jkOl7QIXxlQ I hope you all will watch it. I find his > argument compelling and have yet to ask Carl Hart what he thinks about the > orbital frontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex scans referenced. > As always, this is an area where more research needs to be done I?m sure. > Practically speaking, this perspective I hope leads to compassion for > people struggling with addiction so we can help to reduce the harm that > comes to them and help provide treatment. > > > -Henry > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 4:39 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 2:30 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> What an overly simplified view of the brain, as if parts of the brain >>> don't send signals to other parts. >>> >>> Why is it so hard to admit you are wrong? You are wrong. The science >>> is the opposite of what you say. You are not a neuroscientist, are you? >>> An addiction researcher? Is there any reason your intuition and personal >>> single anecdote would possibly be something I would consider true over >>> literal thousands of pieces of vetted scientific research? >>> >>> Blows my mind. Not sure how you are usually into science but not for >>> this one thing. >>> >> >> ### I agree with you, Will. >> >> I also think it is useful to look at the problem from a practical, >> problem-solving point of view. The most important characteristic of >> addiction is that it is a behavior that the addict continues despite >> knowing that it has significant deleterious effects on his life. One could >> quibble about what is "deleterious" but in practical terms addiction is the >> kind of behavior that just doesn't stop easily despite significant cost. If >> it stops after a stern talking-to, it's definitely not an addiction. If it >> continues after losing your job, money, spouse, after a jail time, being >> beaten up and going through rehab, yes, might be an addiction. Researchers >> will look at the neurological correlates of the behaviors but us practical >> people mostly ask "How do I fix the problem?" >> >> People with a moralistic bent may talk about blame, guilt, shame, >> weakness, lack of willpower, etc. but again, what counts is the practical >> outcome - Is he still doing after whatever intervention you tried? Did he >> stop after the priest chewed him out? Did he get better with the help of >> suboxone or methadone? Did CBT help? >> >> What counts is how many people avoided being homeless and overdosing in >> an alley or getting lung cancer, whether by pulling themselves up by their >> own moral bootstraps or by mere nicotine patch. >> >> Rafal >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Sat Apr 9 17:19:11 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 12:19:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] willpower defined Message-ID: EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He talks to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, facial expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being upset. She talks to him and they leave the party. Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know it's not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We don't. What we need is more observations of that couple in various situations and maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. The point is this: for an abstract concept to have some validity, you cannot have just one line of evidence. The more observations you have which, common sense-wise, look like jealousy, the better. But you can never be sure. Even if both the guy and the girl say they have problems with jealousy in her, it can be something else. Maybe she is acting jealous and doesn't care a flip who he talks to or dances with etc. You cannot directly observe an abstraction. You can only observe the factual data (smiling at other girls while she fumes) and infer. So - with willpower, you have to observe several different situations in which the person succeeds, or fails, and try to find a pattern. And try to build a theory. Like any other aspect of psyc, unknown variables which very often cannot be controlled for, are present and can mess up your interpretations, and those are likely to vary between and among situations. Complex behavior has more than one cause - we call it multi-determined. Psychology has many such theories and all of them have messy data, some studies supporting, some not, some poorly controlled, some with unusual Ss and so on and so on. Maddening trying to figure out people. Psychologists are the least likely people to form solid conclusions in analyzing people. And certainly not quickly. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 19:43:44 2022 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave S) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 15:43:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > and until someone comes up with a noncircular definition of willpower > (which would not make me wrong) I rest my case. > "Willpower is the ability to resist short-term gratification in pursuit of long-term goals or objectives." https://www.apa.org/topics/personality/willpower -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ben at zaiboc.net Sat Apr 9 20:06:59 2022 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 21:06:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8918ba62-5a82-bf4f-b86e-caf9ecb9ced2@zaiboc.net> On 07/04/2022 02:11, spike wrote: > Billw, sugar is bad for the teeth. Ha, that made me snort! It's a bit like saying shooting yourself in the foot is bad for your shoes: True, but pretty insignificant compared to the other effects. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 21:33:17 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 16:33:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dave, that's not bad. It does contain words that could be turned into experimental manipulations. But it still lacks the measurement function. What is short term? Long term? How will we define gratification? All problems of measurement. bill w On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 2:46 PM Dave S via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> and until someone comes up with a noncircular definition of willpower >> (which would not make me wrong) I rest my case. >> > > "Willpower is the ability to resist short-term gratification in pursuit of > long-term goals or objectives." > https://www.apa.org/topics/personality/willpower > > -Dave > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 21:46:32 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 17:46:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Willpower is the ability to physically execute plans. That's a simple one On Sat, Apr 9, 2022, 5:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Dave, that's not bad. It does contain words that could be turned into > experimental manipulations. But it still lacks the measurement function. > What is short term? Long term? How will we define gratification? All > problems of measurement. bill w > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 2:46 PM Dave S via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> and until someone comes up with a noncircular definition of willpower >>> (which would not make me wrong) I rest my case. >>> >> >> "Willpower is the ability to resist short-term gratification in pursuit >> of long-term goals or objectives." >> https://www.apa.org/topics/personality/willpower >> >> -Dave >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 22:12:58 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:12:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 9, 2022, 5:35 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Dave, that's not bad. It does contain words that could be turned into > experimental manipulations. But it still lacks the measurement function. > What is short term? Long term? How will we define gratification? All > problems of measurement. bill w > What are words? How does meaning happen? Until you prove to me that you exist, I'll discount everything you say as deranged ramblings of a hostile actor.. Nah, just kidding. But it has come across to me that you've dug in your heels to be right - and no amount of links, articles, definitions, etc are going to change your stance. At some level of "yeah but..." there is a 'symbol grounding' issue over words and i fear that turns into a morass similar to the redness of red conversation. ...or have I misunderstood your intent ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 22:20:18 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 17:20:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here's the idea: for the purpose of doing studies, we have to have measurements, very preferably in numbers of some sort, that we can do again and again and get very similar results. In psychology this is difficult. That calls for operational definitions: the concept is defined by the measurements used. That enables us to say intelligence is the score on the STanford/Binet test, which sounds silly to most people. But that is exactly what we are looking for. We are not trying to tell what the concept is. That usually calls for words that themselves need defining, like what I wrote in response to Dave. Synonyms just won't work. 'Willpower means not quitting.' OK, now - just what does that mean? We now have to define 'not quitting'. No good. >From Google: ' *the operational definition of anxiety could be in terms of a test score, withdrawal from a situation, or activation of the sympathetic nervous system*. All of those are behaviors that we can easily measure and agree upon. bill w On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 4:48 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Willpower is the ability to physically execute plans. That's a simple one > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022, 5:34 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Dave, that's not bad. It does contain words that could be turned into >> experimental manipulations. But it still lacks the measurement function. >> What is short term? Long term? How will we define gratification? All >> problems of measurement. bill w >> >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 2:46 PM Dave S via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 7:29 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> and until someone comes up with a noncircular definition of willpower >>>> (which would not make me wrong) I rest my case. >>>> >>> >>> "Willpower is the ability to resist short-term gratification in pursuit >>> of long-term goals or objectives." >>> https://www.apa.org/topics/personality/willpower >>> >>> -Dave >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Sat Apr 9 22:24:33 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 17:24:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mike I did not give up because I was right (did I have willpower?). See my latest post of a few minutes ago. If you cannot objectively measure willpower or any other concept, you cannot do valid studies. Many people would be happy with 'gut feelings' as a definition of 'intuition'. Do you see how that fails in every aspect to give us a way to measure it? bill w On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 5:15 PM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022, 5:35 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Dave, that's not bad. It does contain words that could be turned into >> experimental manipulations. But it still lacks the measurement function. >> What is short term? Long term? How will we define gratification? All >> problems of measurement. bill w >> > > What are words? How does meaning happen? Until you prove to me that you > exist, I'll discount everything you say as deranged ramblings of a hostile > actor.. > > Nah, just kidding. But it has come across to me that you've dug in your > heels to be right - and no amount of links, articles, definitions, etc > are going to change your stance. > > At some level of "yeah but..." there is a 'symbol grounding' issue over > words and i fear that turns into a morass similar to the redness of red > conversation. > > ...or have I misunderstood your intent ? > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 22:49:48 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:49:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 9, 2022, 6:27 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Mike I did not give up because I was right (did I have willpower?). See > my latest post of a few minutes ago. If you cannot objectively measure > willpower or any other concept, you cannot do valid studies. > > Many people would be happy with 'gut feelings' as a definition of > 'intuition'. Do you see how that fails in every aspect to give us a way to > measure it? bill w > Yeah. I see that words fail in almost every attempt I make to convey an idea. I now believe words are not finite and tangible mental objects... they're clouds of probabilty that we agree (more or less) have good-enough central tendency to be usable to direct each other's attention. In a social context "conversational" use of words does not require the type of definition you are trying to apply. I suspect even if you did pursue this five nines precision of "willpower" we could as easily reject your starting premise and that completely undermines the expressive power of your model. I am often challenged for how I react to meaning I have for words that weren't actually being sent/intended by the speaker. Ex: people say "mad" when they mean "angry" - do I respond to what is said or what was meant? tl;dr "words are hard" And this oldie but goodie: https://i.redd.it/f9vdbp4pl3721.jpg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 9 23:11:09 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 18:11:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's not my 'model'. It's what is done in all of experimental psychology. Any study can be criticized for not measuring the right thing. In other words, people can disagree with your definition in the study. For instance, by saying that the Stanford Binet doesn't really measure intelligence. But the point is: they do know exactly what I mean. They can take my materials etc. and repeat my study because my definitions of terms are objective. In everyday life we use terms that are probably broad enough that various interpretations of them can be made, and we don't know which one is correct. Operational definitions solve this problem. bill w On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 5:51 PM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022, 6:27 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Mike I did not give up because I was right (did I have willpower?). See >> my latest post of a few minutes ago. If you cannot objectively measure >> willpower or any other concept, you cannot do valid studies. >> >> Many people would be happy with 'gut feelings' as a definition of >> 'intuition'. Do you see how that fails in every aspect to give us a way to >> measure it? bill w >> > > Yeah. I see that words fail in almost every attempt I make to convey an > idea. I now believe words are not finite and tangible mental objects... > they're clouds of probabilty that we agree (more or less) have good-enough > central tendency to be usable to direct each other's attention. In a social > context "conversational" use of words does not require the type of > definition you are trying to apply. I suspect even if you did pursue this > five nines precision of "willpower" we could as easily reject your starting > premise and that completely undermines the expressive power of your model. > I am often challenged for how I react to meaning I have for words that > weren't actually being sent/intended by the speaker. Ex: people say "mad" > when they mean "angry" - do I respond to what is said or what was meant? > tl;dr "words are hard" > > And this oldie but goodie: > https://i.redd.it/f9vdbp4pl3721.jpg > >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Apr 9 23:19:17 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 00:19:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 23:52, Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat wrote: > > Yeah. I see that words fail in almost every attempt I make to convey an idea. I now believe words are not finite and tangible mental objects... they're clouds of probabilty that we agree (more or less) have good-enough central tendency to be usable to direct each other's attention. In a social context "conversational" use of words does not require the type of definition you are trying to apply. I suspect even if you did pursue this five nines precision of "willpower" we could as easily reject your starting premise and that completely undermines the expressive power of your model. I am often challenged for how I react to meaning I have for words that weren't actually being sent/intended by the speaker. Ex: people say "mad" when they mean "angry" - do I respond to what is said or what was meant? tl;dr "words are hard" > > And this oldie but goodie: > https://i.redd.it/f9vdbp4pl3721.jpg > _______________________________________________ This reminds me of Laynes' Law. Coined by software developer Layne Thomas, Layne's law of debate states that: A) every debate is over the definition of a word, B) every debate eventually degenerates into debating the definition of a word, or C) once a debate degenerates into debating the definition of a word, the debate is debatably over. A notable example of this law may be the arguments over the definition of "assault weapon" in the gun control debate. ------------ BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 00:14:44 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 19:14:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: BillK, I have read that a general semanticist has estimated that in ordinary conversation only about 1/3 of what is said actually communicates accurately to the other person. (Less if it is between a man and a woman - then it can fall to near zero ??) Primarily, I reckon, because people have different definitions of the concepts stemming from different life experiences. Now imagine the difficulty of the UN translators, rendering in English on the go what is being said in some other language, whose citizens have at times very different cultures, attitudes, religions, and so on. I read of a story from France in which TV contestants are required to tell what another person is saying - in French. And they often can't. bill w On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 6:21 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 23:52, Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Yeah. I see that words fail in almost every attempt I make to convey an > idea. I now believe words are not finite and tangible mental objects... > they're clouds of probabilty that we agree (more or less) have good-enough > central tendency to be usable to direct each other's attention. In a social > context "conversational" use of words does not require the type of > definition you are trying to apply. I suspect even if you did pursue this > five nines precision of "willpower" we could as easily reject your starting > premise and that completely undermines the expressive power of your model. > I am often challenged for how I react to meaning I have for words that > weren't actually being sent/intended by the speaker. Ex: people say "mad" > when they mean "angry" - do I respond to what is said or what was meant? > tl;dr "words are hard" > > > > And this oldie but goodie: > > https://i.redd.it/f9vdbp4pl3721.jpg > > _______________________________________________ > > > This reminds me of Laynes' Law. > Coined by software developer Layne Thomas, Layne's law of debate states > that: > A) every debate is over the definition of a word, > B) every debate eventually degenerates into debating the definition of > a word, or > C) once a debate degenerates into debating the definition of a word, > the debate is debatably over. > A notable example of this law may be the arguments over the definition > of "assault weapon" in the gun control debate. > ------------ > > 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 00:24:38 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 20:24:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: When did we start talking about a way to define and measure willpower? The point of the whole thing was that William said stopping addiction was easy, voluntary, and didn't involve physical damage, and we showed scientific proof otherwise. Why are we having weird semantic discussions now? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 00:25:46 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 20:25:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: <000e01d842fd$741c9920$5c55cb60$@rainier66.com> References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <497940D5-5AED-4973-9863-CBB4F30FB6C6@alumni.virginia.edu> <004201d840cc$a7f7a380$f7e6ea80$@rainier66.com> <005a01d84137$dd1d95e0$9758c1a0$@rainier66.com> <012b01d842df$858f4950$90addbf0$@rainier66.com> <000e01d842fd$741c9920$5c55cb60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I would imagine there are many former tobacco smokers here. Not sure why you would think otherwise. I used to smoke 2 packs a day. On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 7:43 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? > > > > >?Two things we all know and are being left out: that tobacco is the > most addicting drug ( I wanted to quit for years before I actually did (and > showed myself that it was easy)) ? bill w > > > > Sure enough. Billw, I don?t suspect there are many tobacco smokers among > us, current or former. You might be the lone ranger in that. > > > > Congratulations on kicking the habit sir. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 00:31:15 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2022 20:31:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] willpower defined In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective observer in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. In a year, check with the participants and their observers, to see whether they completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't complete' groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in the other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is willpower On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's > ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He talks > to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, facial > expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being upset. > She talks to him and they leave the party. > > Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know it's > not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We don't. > What we need is more observations of that couple in various situations and > maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. > > The point is this: for an abstract concept to have some validity, you > cannot have just one line of evidence. The more observations you have > which, common sense-wise, look like jealousy, the better. > > But you can never be sure. Even if both the guy and the girl say they > have problems with jealousy in her, it can be something else. Maybe she is > acting jealous and doesn't care a flip who he talks to or dances with etc. > You cannot directly observe an abstraction. You can only observe the > factual data (smiling at other girls while she fumes) and infer. > > So - with willpower, you have to observe several different situations in > which the person succeeds, or fails, and try to find a pattern. And try to > build a theory. > > Like any other aspect of psyc, unknown variables which very often cannot > be controlled for, are present and can mess up your interpretations, and > those are likely to vary between and among situations. Complex behavior > has more than one cause - we call it multi-determined. > > Psychology has many such theories and all of them have messy data, some > studies supporting, some not, some poorly controlled, some with unusual Ss > and so on and so on. Maddening trying to figure out people. Psychologists > are the least likely people to form solid conclusions in analyzing people. > And certainly not quickly. > > bill w > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 13:39:25 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 08:39:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I said it was easy for me. Never meant to imply that a lot of people didn't have trouble doing it. People outside the sciences think of definitions as synonyms, metaphors, similes. That won't do. People on the chat group said of course willpower exists since they had it. That was when I went into the kinds of definitions science uses as opposed to the public. bill, not william, f On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:26 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > When did we start talking about a way to define and measure willpower? > The point of the whole thing was that William said stopping addiction was > easy, voluntary, and didn't involve physical damage, and we showed > scientific proof otherwise. > > Why are we having weird semantic discussions now? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Apr 10 13:43:45 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2022 08:43:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] willpower defined In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. > > Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective observer > in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. In a > year, check with the participants and their observers, to see whether they > completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't complete' > groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in the > other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as > possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is willpower > Yeah, or some other more or less equivalent term. I think they need to be matched on goals, the goals rated as to difficulty and so on. and I could quibble a bit about their environments, but I more or less agree. bill w > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's >> ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He talks >> to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, facial >> expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being upset. >> She talks to him and they leave the party. >> >> Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know it's >> not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We don't. >> What we need is more observations of that couple in various situations and >> maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. >> >> The point is this: for an abstract concept to have some validity, you >> cannot have just one line of evidence. The more observations you have >> which, common sense-wise, look like jealousy, the better. >> >> But you can never be sure. Even if both the guy and the girl say they >> have problems with jealousy in her, it can be something else. Maybe she is >> acting jealous and doesn't care a flip who he talks to or dances with etc. >> You cannot directly observe an abstraction. You can only observe the >> factual data (smiling at other girls while she fumes) and infer. >> >> So - with willpower, you have to observe several different situations in >> which the person succeeds, or fails, and try to find a pattern. And try to >> build a theory. >> >> Like any other aspect of psyc, unknown variables which very often cannot >> be controlled for, are present and can mess up your interpretations, and >> those are likely to vary between and among situations. Complex behavior >> has more than one cause - we call it multi-determined. >> >> Psychology has many such theories and all of them have messy data, some >> studies supporting, some not, some poorly controlled, some with unusual Ss >> and so on and so on. Maddening trying to figure out people. Psychologists >> are the least likely people to form solid conclusions in analyzing people. >> And certainly not quickly. >> >> bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 20:03:34 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:03:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Live Forever in the Metaverse Message-ID: Metaverse Company to Offer Immortality Through ?Live Forever? Mode Somnium Space is developing a way for people to talk to their loved ones even after they die. All it requires is massive amounts of personal data. by Maxwell Strachan Apr 13, 2022 Quotes: The death of Sychov?s father served as the inspiration for an idea that he would come to call ?Live Forever? mode, a forthcoming feature in Somnium Space that allows people to have their movements and conversations stored as data, then duplicated as an avatar that moves, talks, and sounds just like you?and can continue to do so long after you have died. In Sychov?s dream, people will be able to talk to their dead loved one whenever they wish. ----- But the beauty of the idea, according to Sychov, is that this other version of you can continue to evolve alongside artificial intelligence technology in the coming years, even if all the data was collected years ago. ?Let's say you die or someone dies,? Sychov explained to me. ?With the same amount of data we collected about you, with the progression of AI, we can recreate you better and better? over time. ------------------- This sounds like a progression from the chatbot created of a dead person to a similar chatbot but speaking via a life-like avatar in the Metaverse. It might make the Metaverse rather unnerving if you never knew whether you were speaking to a bot, a dead avatar, or a real live person. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 20:27:04 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:27:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Live Forever in the Metaverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 1:06 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > This sounds like a progression from the chatbot created of a dead > person to a similar chatbot but speaking via a life-like avatar in the > Metaverse. It might make the Metaverse rather unnerving if you never > knew whether you were speaking to a bot, a dead avatar, or a real live > person. > Despite all the hype, what they actually create is fairly easy to distinguish from an actual person. There is usually no capability to learn new information - not even the name of whoever they are speaking with. When there is, it is rarely retained more than briefly. Also, most of the data they would need to make better models, they don't know to collect - and thus it gets lost. In particular, any data outside the context in which the data was recorded. Just within the past 24 hours, I was talking about a critical life experience in someone's life that happened more than half that person's lifetime ago - and because it was so long ago, it was never mentioned in modern times (because it never came up, so the person never thought to mention it), and then lost with the person, having to be reconstructed from other, subsequently-discovered accounts once it became relevant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 20:43:27 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 21:43:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Live Forever in the Metaverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 21:29, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > Despite all the hype, what they actually create is fairly easy to distinguish from an actual person. There is usually no capability to learn new information - not even the name of whoever they are speaking with. When there is, it is rarely retained more than briefly. > > Also, most of the data they would need to make better models, they don't know to collect - and thus it gets lost. In particular, any data outside the context in which the data was recorded. Just within the past 24 hours, I was talking about a critical life experience in someone's life that happened more than half that person's lifetime ago - and because it was so long ago, it was never mentioned in modern times (because it never came up, so the person never thought to mention it), and then lost with the person, having to be reconstructed from other, subsequently-discovered accounts once it became relevant. > _______________________________________________ Oh, yes, indeed there is a lot of hype! :) But the Metaverse is at the Model T Ford stage at present. Give it a few years of exponential development and watch the hype become real. And a few years after that we'll all be living in the Metaverse. Hopefully not as minions of Zuckerberg. :) BillK BillK From atymes at gmail.com Wed Apr 13 21:09:23 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 14:09:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Live Forever in the Metaverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 1:45 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > But the Metaverse is at the Model T Ford stage at present. > Depends on what you call the Metaverse. As regards the subject of this thread - making recordings that can be used to let you live on as an AI - I'd say we're more at the Hero of Alexandria stage: the basic concept has been worked out, but some of the underlying technologies are still missing, so any current attempt to implement will come out as, at most, a toy version, far lesser than the full vision. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From guessmyneeds at yahoo.com Wed Apr 13 23:21:45 2022 From: guessmyneeds at yahoo.com (Sherry Knepper) Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 23:21:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [ExI] Live Forever in the Metaverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2132503948.428229.1649892105305@mail.yahoo.com> I heard about this a few years ago.? It's a glorified video plus AI.? I don't think this would help with grief and the stronger the grief the less it would help.? ?Don't know about quantum archaeology.? ?Sounds like glorified 3D printing or cloning, but an identical twin, to raise as a baby could make me feel a little better.? ?In other words, better than nothing.? We need to do what the cryonics people want to do -reanimate. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 4:33 PM, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Thu Apr 14 01:36:30 2022 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 01:36:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Fw: Alcor 50th Conference Early Registration In-Reply-To: <56e6981749c230c09bb4b4ab2.43e7fbb032.20220413230855.7ce544594a.03310e5d@mail152.wdc02.mcdlv.net> References: <56e6981749c230c09bb4b4ab2.43e7fbb032.20220413230855.7ce544594a.03310e5d@mail152.wdc02.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: ________________________________ From: Marji Klima Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 4:09 PM To: Max More Subject: Alcor 50th Conference Early Registration Only 3 more days for early registration! [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/template_images/gallery/47662b23-df38-45d4-8005-9b2f50193f4b.png] ALCOR 50TH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE EARLY REGISTRATION ENDS APRIL 15TH! [https://mcusercontent.com/56e6981749c230c09bb4b4ab2/images/80552269-da9c-c5c8-57cb-39e6d3ef8f2b.png] Celebrate Alcor's 50th Anniversary in Scottsdale, Arizona this June. There will be thought provoking speakers, plenty of time to network, meet with old friends, and make new friends. Stop by the Alcor facility Sunday afternoon for an open house. June 2022 3-5 REGISTER [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/template_images/gallery/03c9e5d8-4a2f-471e-b646-37327134c2b0.png] [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/template_images/gallery/47662b23-df38-45d4-8005-9b2f50193f4b.png] Copyright ? 2022 Alcor Life Extension Foundation; All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: info at alcor.org Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 18:03:28 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:03:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a little fun Message-ID: A sad day ahead for blind fish - from Nature: In the underground caves of north-eastern Mexico, groups of blind fish that communicate using clicks seem to be developing cave-specific accents . Researchers studying the Mexican tetra (*Astyanax mexicanus*) analysed hours of fish chatter in six caves spread across the three mountain ranges. They noticed significant differences: clicks were relatively high-pitched in one cave, and deep and booming in another, for example. The linguistic split could eventually contribute to ongoing speciation among the fish. ?Maybe after a million years it will have drifted so much that they will not be able to understand each other anymore,? says neuroscientist Sylvie R?taux. (is this a cool way to make a living, or what?) bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Thu Apr 14 18:05:06 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:05:06 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fw: Alcor 50th Conference Early Registration In-Reply-To: References: <56e6981749c230c09bb4b4ab2.43e7fbb032.20220413230855.7ce544594a.03310e5d@mail152.wdc02.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: Wooo Hoooo, you got Chalmers!! That is going to be fun! On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 7:37 PM Max More via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Marji Klima > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2022 4:09 PM > *To:* Max More > *Subject:* Alcor 50th Conference Early Registration > > Only 3 more days for early registration! > ALCOR 50TH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE EARLY REGISTRATION ENDS APRIL 15TH! > > Celebrate Alcor's 50th Anniversary in Scottsdale, Arizona this June. There > will be thought provoking speakers, plenty of time to network, meet with > old friends, and make new friends. > > Stop by the Alcor facility Sunday afternoon for an open house. > June 2022 > 3-5 > REGISTER > > *Copyright ? 2022 Alcor Life Extension Foundation; All rights reserved.* > > *Our mailing address is:* > info at alcor.org > > Want to change how you receive these emails? > You can update your preferences > > or unsubscribe from this list > > . > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Apr 16 09:37:38 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2022 10:37:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Live Forever in the Metaverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 at 22:12, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote: > > As regards the subject of this thread - making recordings that can be used to let you live on as an AI - I'd say we're more at the Hero of Alexandria stage: the basic concept has been worked out, but some of the underlying technologies are still missing, so any current attempt to implement will come out as, at most, a toy version, far lesser than the full vision. > _______________________________________________ Another article talks about what the future Metaverse might be like ....... Stumbling Toward The Metaverse By Fred Phillips | April 15th 2022 Quotes: The real world ? the physical world, the meat-and-veggie world ? is in trouble. Nuclear proliferation, pandemic, climate change, you know the list. As computer capacity and A.I. make for ever more detailed metaverses, will we use them to escape reality ? playing in NFT patches of ?unreal estate? while reality crumbles around us, fiddling while Rome burns ? or will we use them to save the world? Plenty of folks will take the first choice. ------ The useful multiverses will be the great-grandchildren of SimCity, allowing massive simulation of sustainability strategies in urban and rural milieux in varied ranges of climate zones. Artificial intelligence will help us comprehend the multi-multi-dimensional data and sims, so we may make the wisest possible decisions. If well designed, the metaverse and its A.I. will support decisions that combine each user's head, heart, and gut, with the whole-person perspectives of diverse other users. ------------------------------------------ So the Metaverse could become a video game for amusing ourselves to death or a constructive tool to help redesign our physical world. Choices........ BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Apr 17 22:17:21 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 17:17:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] question from quora Message-ID: *Anton Castleton* requested your answerIs it possible to learn to think directly in concepts rather than words? Cognitive is not my field. What do you think? Or perhaps, how. I tried thinking of geometric figures but the words kept popping up in my mind. bill w l -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 00:50:19 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 20:50:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] question from quora In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 17, 2022, 6:19 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *Anton Castleton* requested your answerIs it possible to learn to think > directly in concepts rather than words? > > > > > Cognitive > is not my field. What do you think? Or perhaps, how. I tried thinking of > geometric figures but the words kept popping up in my mind. bill w > > l > I suspect we always think directly in concepts. It's that we have to serialize complex mental constructs to a narrow bandwidth "words" to communicate them. I think Plato had this well understood but less well communicated as what are known as Platonic Forms. I imagine your ideal Tree differs from my ideal Tree in several important details, but we can still make and agree on salient features of ideal Tree. I think in this example we're thinking natively in concept of tree and only when trying to talk about it do we connect words to those ideas. That said, I know there are people with aphantasia that cannot understand what we mean by "visualize", "picture this", or "mind's eye" - so it's possible some people may have Chinese Box style rules for processing words without actual connectiong to archetypal Forms. Do you have a word-tag enter active working mind when I posit "packed lunch that mom made for you" .. or does that evoke a flood of memories and associations (ex: feelings) that might not even have word-tags? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Apr 18 01:53:41 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 18:53:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] question from quora In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <059701d852c7$21d81b10$65885130$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Sunday, 17 April, 2022 3:17 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] question from quora Anton Castleton requested your answer Is it possible to learn to think directly in concepts rather than words? Cognitive is not my field. What do you think? Or perhaps, how. I tried thinking of geometric figures but the words kept popping up in my mind. bill wl Of course. I can think of a coupla good examples that do not go thru words at all. An instrumentalist hears a jazz lick that he likes, plays it back with trimmings on his own horn. No words are spoken. A chess player plays over a game by a couple of grandmasters, learns come cool tricks, no words there. A mechanical engineer takes a machines apart, sees how it works, fixes it, thinks of ways to improve it, no words at all. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Mon Apr 18 05:35:20 2022 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2022 22:35:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 223, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20220417223520.Horde.Z-L7PnpZ0Lvx9P5ukXY4DoY@sollegro.com> Quoting Bill Wallace: > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. >> >> Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective observer >> in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. In a >> year, check with the participants and their observers, to see whether they >> completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't complete' >> groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in the >> other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as >> possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is willpower >> > > Yeah, or some other more or less equivalent term. I think they need to be > matched on goals, the goals rated as to difficulty and so on. and I could > quibble a bit about their environments, but I more or less agree. bill w IMO, the most fascinating thing about will-power is that it exists and is thus quantifiable. The reason this is surprising is because modern functionalist, physicalists, and materialists insist that brain makes mind in a one way causal relationship termed supervenience. That is to say that a brain state should be able to cause and mind state but a mind state should not be able to cause a brain state. Since, even in cases of addiction, willpower is often defined colloquially as "mind over matter", this would violate supervenience because "mind over matter" would be labelled as downward causation and forbidden. Near as I can tell, willpower would have to defined as the triumph over-riding of one part of the brain against another. Such as one's frontal lobe overcoming ones limbic system and allowing one to fight off a craving for any particular stimulus. Stuart LaForge >> >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's >>> ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He talks >>> to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, facial >>> expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being upset. >>> She talks to him and they leave the party. >>> >>> Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know it's >>> not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We don't. >>> What we need is more observations of that couple in various situations and >>> maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. Jealousy might be another bizarrely "causal" states of mind. The sheer number of people that have through history been murdered by somebody in a fit of jealous rage should be relatively high. Stuart LaForge From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 15:48:42 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 10:48:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] question from quora In-Reply-To: <059701d852c7$21d81b10$65885130$@rainier66.com> References: <059701d852c7$21d81b10$65885130$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I agree about the music. But don't words like 'fork' come up in chess? You see the positions and the word applies. Similarly, the machine parts all have names and surely they arise at some point. But I think it is settled that we can think only in concepts. bill w On Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 8:56 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Sent:* Sunday, 17 April, 2022 3:17 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Cc:* William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] question from quora > > > > > > *Anton Castleton* requested your answer*Is it possible to learn to think > directly in concepts rather than words?* > > > > > *Cognitive > is not my field. What do you think? Or perhaps, how. I tried thinking of > geometric figures but the words kept popping up in my mind. bill w* > > l > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course. I can think of a coupla good examples that do not go thru > words at all. An instrumentalist hears a jazz lick that he likes, plays it > back with trimmings on his own horn. No words are spoken. A chess player > plays over a game by a couple of grandmasters, learns come cool tricks, no > words there. A mechanical engineer takes a machines apart, sees how it > works, fixes it, thinks of ways to improve it, no words at all. > > > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 16:20:39 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 11:20:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 223, Issue 16 In-Reply-To: <20220417223520.Horde.Z-L7PnpZ0Lvx9P5ukXY4DoY@sollegro.com> References: <20220417223520.Horde.Z-L7PnpZ0Lvx9P5ukXY4DoY@sollegro.com> Message-ID: Here we go again with definitions. An abstract concept only exists as we define it. Suppose I have an approach-avoidance conflict. I am stuck in the middle and can't make up my mind. Trying to get rid of an addiction can be thought of like this. In the brain there may be opposing excitatory and inhibitory forces that are equal. Now I see something on tv or read in a book that adds one iota to the approach side, making doing it more attractive, and so I do the thing, whatever it is. I have trouble calling this willpower. It may look like this to others. Now consider all traits as being in a huge set. We pick out certain ones and call the total willpower (or just about anything). Someone else comes along and picks out a slightly different set and calls that willpower. The two argue: one says that's more like persistence than willpower and the other disagrees. Who is right? Neither. Both. One of them. Depending on use of the word. Look at all the flap over the years about what to call intelligence. Is it unitary? Multifaceted? Depends on who is picking out the parts from the total set. Being forced to eat beets is a different force than what holds the Moon up there. Pretty sure about that. Mind over matter is dualism and makes utterly no sense to me. bill w On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:37 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting Bill Wallace: > > > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > >> Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. > >> > >> Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective > observer > >> in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. > In a > >> year, check with the participants and their observers, to see whether > they > >> completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't complete' > >> groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in the > >> other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as > >> possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is willpower > >> > > > > Yeah, or some other more or less equivalent term. I think they need to > be > > matched on goals, the goals rated as to difficulty and so on. and I could > > quibble a bit about their environments, but I more or less agree. bill w > > IMO, the most fascinating thing about will-power is that it exists and > is thus quantifiable. The reason this is surprising is because modern > functionalist, physicalists, and materialists insist that brain makes > mind in a one way causal relationship termed supervenience. That is to > say that a brain state should be able to cause and mind state but a > mind state should not be able to cause a brain state. > > Since, even in cases of addiction, willpower is often defined > colloquially as "mind over matter", this would violate supervenience > because "mind over matter" would be labelled as downward causation and > forbidden. > > Near as I can tell, willpower would have to defined as the triumph > over-riding of one part of the brain against another. Such as one's > frontal lobe overcoming ones limbic system and allowing one to fight > off a craving for any particular stimulus. > > Stuart LaForge > > > > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> > >>> EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's > >>> ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He > talks > >>> to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, facial > >>> expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being > upset. > >>> She talks to him and they leave the party. > >>> > >>> Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know > it's > >>> not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We don't. > >>> What we need is more observations of that couple in various situations > and > >>> maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. > > Jealousy might be another bizarrely "causal" states of mind. The sheer > number of people that have through history been murdered by somebody > in a fit of jealous rage should be relatively high. > > > 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 giulio at gmail.com Mon Apr 18 16:47:24 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 18:47:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Live Forever in the Metaverse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2022. Apr 13., Wed at 23:10, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 1:45 PM BillK via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> But the Metaverse is at the Model T Ford stage at present. >> > > Depends on what you call the Metaverse. > > As regards the subject of this thread - making recordings that can be used > to let you live on as an AI - I'd say we're more at the Hero of Alexandria > stage: the basic concept has been worked out, but some of the underlying > technologies are still missing, so any current attempt to implement will > come out as, at most, a toy version, far lesser than the full vision. > Right. All these things will converge and become a real something eventually, but we still have a loooong way to go if you ask me. _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tech101 at gmail.com Thu Apr 21 12:42:51 2022 From: tech101 at gmail.com (Adam A. Ford) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 22:42:51 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Free Zoom Futurist Conference April 23-34, 2022 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thankyou Bill! Just a reminder that the Stepping Into the Future conference is happening this weekend. There have been some updates to the agenda and speaker list - i.e Tom Everitt (Deep Mind) will be speaking on 'Causal Incentives and Safe AGI' Kind regards, Adam A. Ford AU Mobile +61 421 979977 Chair - Science, Technology & the Future - (Meetup / Facebook / YouTube / Instagram / Twitter ) "A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels." - Albert Einstein, May 1946) On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 02:45, BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > 'Stepping Into the Future' conference - April 23-24 2022 > by /u/adam_ford > > The 'Stepping Into the Future' conference is coming up soon - April > 23-24th to be exact. It's online and it's free (via zoom). It will be > fun & exciting - I hope you can all make it. Many of the abstracts of > the talks are already online (linked to from the agenda) - so check > them out. > > "We are in the midst of a technological avalanche ? surprisingly to > many, AI has made the impossible possible. In a rapidly changing world > maintaining and expanding our capacity to innovate is essential." > > What: A conference about important developments in technology today > and in the future > When: April 23rd-24th, 2022 > Where: Online via Zoom > Price: Free > > There are 4 main categories: > The Future Human & the Posthuman, > Paradise Engineering/Qualia Quality Control, > Long-term Futures > Artificial Intelligence / Machine Understanding. > > Speakers/panelists include: > > Anders Sandberg (Future of Humanity Institute) > Andres E. Gomez (Qualia Research Institute) > Ben Goertzel (OpenCog, SingularityNET) > David Pearce (The Hedonistic Imperative) > James Hughes (Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technology) > John Smart (Acceleration Watch) > Joscha Bach (Intel Labs) > Mike Johnson (Qualia Research Institute) > PJ Manney (Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technology) > Pramod K. Nayar (University of Hyderabad) > Stuart Armstrong (Future of Humanity Institute) > > Conference link: < > https://www.scifuture.org/events/stepping-into-the-future/> > submitted by /u/adam_ford > -------------- > > Most of the speakers will be familiar to Exi-chat members. > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Apr 21 21:23:15 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 16:23:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] carbs Message-ID: According to Susie Bonds, an apparently well-known nutritionist, the following are myths: 1 - carbs are fattening; same calorie count as proteins per weight 2 - avoid fruit because of the sugar; the sugars are different from table sugar and added sugars 3 - avoid anything white; mostly true, though for bread, pasta and rice but don't shun potatoes onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, cauliflower 4 - avoid wheat because of the gluten; only those who are allergic will benefit from avoiding wheat 5 - avoid white sugar; all sugars convert to glucose in the body 6 - don't eat carbs late in the day; no studies support this I suspect that low carb diets work because people eat too many bad carbs; i.e. we will tend to overeat carbs where we wouldn't with proteins. Low fat diets went out of style because of studies. So - eat a balanced diet. How retro. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gadersd at gmail.com Thu Apr 21 22:03:20 2022 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Hermes Trismegistus) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 18:03:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <319EFB00-6527-4BAD-9F21-CFE3F4333013@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 15:46:06 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:46:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: <319EFB00-6527-4BAD-9F21-CFE3F4333013@hxcore.ol> References: <319EFB00-6527-4BAD-9F21-CFE3F4333013@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: Carbs are quick hits. Proteins last you for many hours. Sugary cereals don't last - oatmeal does. Yes, you can be allergic to anything. If something makes you very sick, like gluten. I'd call that an allergy. How are you making the distinction, Hermes? bill w On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:06 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > There are several issues with this. > > > > 1. Carbs are not as satiating as protein. This can lead to greater and > more frequent food consumption which in the end results in more calorie > intake. > 2. I agree with this point. Fruit has fiber which slows the digestion > of the sugar and helps prevent blood sugar spikes. > 3. Onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, and cauliflower are fine for > most people. However, onions, apples, and cauliflower are especially high > in FODMAPS, poorly digested carbs which can cause gas and bloating and even > inflammation in some people. > 4. Gluten must be avoided by more than just those who are allergic to > it. Many people are intolerant, though not allergic. I myself am not > allergic to gluten but become very sick if I eat it. > 5. Pure white sugar does not contain fiber and is too quickly absorbed > by the body. This can cause blood sugar spikes and lead to conditions such > as diabetes. > 6. I don?t see anything wrong with this point. > > > > *From: *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > > *Sent: *Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:26 PM > *To: *ExI chat list > *Cc: *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject: *[ExI] carbs > > > > According to Susie Bonds, an apparently well-known nutritionist, the > following are myths: > > > > 1 - carbs are fattening; same calorie count as proteins per weight > > > > 2 - avoid fruit because of the sugar; the sugars are different from table > sugar and added sugars > > > > 3 - avoid anything white; mostly true, though for bread, pasta and rice > but don't shun potatoes onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, cauliflower > > > > 4 - avoid wheat because of the gluten; only those who are allergic will > benefit from avoiding wheat > > > > 5 - avoid white sugar; all sugars convert to glucose in the body > > > > 6 - don't eat carbs late in the day; no studies support this > > > > I suspect that low carb diets work because people eat too many bad carbs; > i.e. we will tend to overeat carbs where we wouldn't with proteins. Low > fat diets went out of style because of studies. So - eat a balanced diet. > How retro. 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 gadersd at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 16:02:02 2022 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Hermes Trismegistus) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 12:02:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: References: <319EFB00-6527-4BAD-9F21-CFE3F4333013@hxcore.ol>, Message-ID: <6CF5925C-4899-4F47-AF6C-A6444F616B57@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 16:12:33 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:12:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: <6CF5925C-4899-4F47-AF6C-A6444F616B57@hxcore.ol> References: <319EFB00-6527-4BAD-9F21-CFE3F4333013@hxcore.ol> <6CF5925C-4899-4F47-AF6C-A6444F616B57@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: Is the question somehow wrong? How can it not be an allergy if it makes you sick? Is intolerance just the lower end of the allergy curve? What did the allergist say about that? Makes no sense at all. bill w On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:04 AM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I was tested by an allergist as I originally suspected that my digestion > issues were due to allergies. As far as I know I am not allergic to any > foods, but I have many severe intolerances. My body cannot tolerate > FODMAPs. This is a common issue for people with IBS and IBS is becoming > more and more common in Western countries. > > > > I would definitely recommend high FODMAP foods for those who can handle it > as those foods tend to be very nutritious. Unfortunately a growing > percentage of the population cannot handle these kinds of foods. Many > people are unaware that high FODMAP foods may be the root of their > digestion, energy, and mood problems. I experienced severe chronic fatigue > and depression for the majority of my life before I realized my food > sensitivities. I am fine now, but it goes to show how devastating a > seemingly harmless diet can be. > > > > *From: *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > > *Sent: *Friday, April 22, 2022 11:48 AM > *To: *ExI chat list > *Cc: *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject: *Re: [ExI] carbs > > > > Carbs are quick hits. Proteins last you for many hours. Sugary cereals > don't last - oatmeal does. > > Yes, you can be allergic to anything. If something makes you very sick, > like gluten. I'd call that an allergy. How are you making the distinction, > Hermes? bill w > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:06 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > There are several issues with this. > > > > 1. Carbs are not as satiating as protein. This can lead to greater and > more frequent food consumption which in the end results in more calorie > intake. > 2. I agree with this point. Fruit has fiber which slows the digestion > of the sugar and helps prevent blood sugar spikes. > 3. Onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, and cauliflower are fine for > most people. However, onions, apples, and cauliflower are especially high > in FODMAPS, poorly digested carbs which can cause gas and bloating and even > inflammation in some people. > 4. Gluten must be avoided by more than just those who are allergic to > it. Many people are intolerant, though not allergic. I myself am not > allergic to gluten but become very sick if I eat it. > 5. Pure white sugar does not contain fiber and is too quickly absorbed > by the body. This can cause blood sugar spikes and lead to conditions such > as diabetes. > 6. I don?t see anything wrong with this point. > > > > *From: *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > > *Sent: *Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:26 PM > *To: *ExI chat list > *Cc: *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject: *[ExI] carbs > > > > According to Susie Bonds, an apparently well-known nutritionist, the > following are myths: > > > > 1 - carbs are fattening; same calorie count as proteins per weight > > > > 2 - avoid fruit because of the sugar; the sugars are different from table > sugar and added sugars > > > > 3 - avoid anything white; mostly true, though for bread, pasta and rice > but don't shun potatoes onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, cauliflower > > > > 4 - avoid wheat because of the gluten; only those who are allergic will > benefit from avoiding wheat > > > > 5 - avoid white sugar; all sugars convert to glucose in the body > > > > 6 - don't eat carbs late in the day; no studies support this > > > > I suspect that low carb diets work because people eat too many bad carbs; > i.e. we will tend to overeat carbs where we wouldn't with proteins. Low > fat diets went out of style because of studies. So - eat a balanced diet. > How retro. bill w > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 16:22:50 2022 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 02:22:50 +1000 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: References: <319EFB00-6527-4BAD-9F21-CFE3F4333013@hxcore.ol> <6CF5925C-4899-4F47-AF6C-A6444F616B57@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 02:14, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Is the question somehow wrong? How can it not be an allergy if it makes > you sick? Is intolerance just the lower end of the allergy curve? What > did the allergist say about that? Makes no sense at all. bill w > An allergy is a specific immune reaction. An intolerance to a food is not necessarily an allergy. On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:04 AM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I was tested by an allergist as I originally suspected that my digestion >> issues were due to allergies. As far as I know I am not allergic to any >> foods, but I have many severe intolerances. My body cannot tolerate >> FODMAPs. This is a common issue for people with IBS and IBS is becoming >> more and more common in Western countries. >> >> >> >> I would definitely recommend high FODMAP foods for those who can handle >> it as those foods tend to be very nutritious. Unfortunately a growing >> percentage of the population cannot handle these kinds of foods. Many >> people are unaware that high FODMAP foods may be the root of their >> digestion, energy, and mood problems. I experienced severe chronic fatigue >> and depression for the majority of my life before I realized my food >> sensitivities. I am fine now, but it goes to show how devastating a >> seemingly harmless diet can be. >> >> >> >> *From: *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >> >> *Sent: *Friday, April 22, 2022 11:48 AM >> *To: *ExI chat list >> *Cc: *William Flynn Wallace >> *Subject: *Re: [ExI] carbs >> >> >> >> Carbs are quick hits. Proteins last you for many hours. Sugary cereals >> don't last - oatmeal does. >> >> Yes, you can be allergic to anything. If something makes you very sick, >> like gluten. I'd call that an allergy. How are you making the distinction, >> Hermes? bill w >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 5:06 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> There are several issues with this. >> >> >> >> 1. Carbs are not as satiating as protein. This can lead to greater >> and more frequent food consumption which in the end results in more calorie >> intake. >> 2. I agree with this point. Fruit has fiber which slows the digestion >> of the sugar and helps prevent blood sugar spikes. >> 3. Onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, and cauliflower are fine >> for most people. However, onions, apples, and cauliflower are especially >> high in FODMAPS, poorly digested carbs which can cause gas and bloating and >> even inflammation in some people. >> 4. Gluten must be avoided by more than just those who are allergic to >> it. Many people are intolerant, though not allergic. I myself am not >> allergic to gluten but become very sick if I eat it. >> 5. Pure white sugar does not contain fiber and is too quickly >> absorbed by the body. This can cause blood sugar spikes and lead to >> conditions such as diabetes. >> 6. I don?t see anything wrong with this point. >> >> >> >> *From: *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >> >> *Sent: *Thursday, April 21, 2022 5:26 PM >> *To: *ExI chat list >> *Cc: *William Flynn Wallace >> *Subject: *[ExI] carbs >> >> >> >> According to Susie Bonds, an apparently well-known nutritionist, the >> following are myths: >> >> >> >> 1 - carbs are fattening; same calorie count as proteins per weight >> >> >> >> 2 - avoid fruit because of the sugar; the sugars are different from table >> sugar and added sugars >> >> >> >> 3 - avoid anything white; mostly true, though for bread, pasta and rice >> but don't shun potatoes onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, cauliflower >> >> >> >> 4 - avoid wheat because of the gluten; only those who are allergic will >> benefit from avoiding wheat >> >> >> >> 5 - avoid white sugar; all sugars convert to glucose in the body >> >> >> >> 6 - don't eat carbs late in the day; no studies support this >> >> >> >> I suspect that low carb diets work because people eat too many bad carbs; >> i.e. we will tend to overeat carbs where we wouldn't with proteins. Low >> fat diets went out of style because of studies. So - eat a balanced diet. >> How retro. bill w >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 20:28:44 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 21:28:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe Message-ID: During the Planck era, the universe was so small that our laws of physics break down. To dive deeper back in time, we?ll need new scientific language. By Sten Odenwald | Published: Thursday, April 21, 2022 Quotes: In less time than it takes to snap your fingers, the universe flashed into existence. Cosmogenesis is the breathtaking story of how this happened. It includes, in its later moments, the creation of the primordial elements and depicts their organization by dark matter and gravity into vast cosmic structures on the largest scales. Meanwhile, on smaller scales, local gravitational collapse created stars and, later, planets. ----------- Discusses string theory, loop quantum gravity and the Planck Era. Interesting, but a bit above my pay grade. :) BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 22 23:45:26 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 18:45:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is dark matter still just hypothetical? bill w On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 3:31 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > During the Planck era, the universe was so small that our laws of > physics break down. > To dive deeper back in time, we?ll need new scientific language. > By Sten Odenwald | Published: Thursday, April 21, 2022 > > < > https://astronomy.com/magazine/news/2022/04/the-planck-era-imagining-our-infant-universe > > > > Quotes: > In less time than it takes to snap your fingers, the universe flashed > into existence. > > Cosmogenesis is the breathtaking story of how this happened. It > includes, in its later moments, the creation of the primordial > elements and depicts their organization by dark matter and gravity > into vast cosmic structures on the largest scales. Meanwhile, on > smaller scales, local gravitational collapse created stars and, later, > planets. > ----------- > > Discusses string theory, loop quantum gravity and the Planck Era. > Interesting, but a bit above my pay grade. :) > > 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 pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 00:07:01 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:07:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 00:48, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > Is dark matter still just hypothetical? bill w > _______________________________________________ In the sense that we don't know what it is, then yes. We can see the gravitational effects that hold spinning galaxies together, but we can't see any physical matter causing those gravitational effects, so we call it 'dark matter'. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 00:20:44 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 01:20:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Aliens may be 'human-like' Message-ID: ?Humans? May Be All Over the Universe, Scientists Say Let?s pretend for a moment that in the future humanity are able to travel to other planets and discover? even more humans. Published Apr 2, 2022 By Katie Hutton Quotes: The BBC?s Science Focus magazine recently published an interview with Simon Conway Morris, an evolutionary palaeobiologist at the university?s Department of Earth Sciences, in which he stated that researchers can ?say with reasonable confidence? that human-like evolution has occurred in other parts of the universe. The idea of convergent evolution, which, according to Science Focus, asserts that ?random effects gradually average out such that evolution converges, tending to generate similar creatures in any given environment,? lies at the heart of Morris? thinking. Flying, for instance, was used by the magazine as an illustration of how flying ?had evolved independently on Earth at least four times ? in birds, bats, insects, and pterosaurs.? In summary, convergent evolution theory asserts that evolution is a natural law that operates similarly on all planets. In other words, the blue and green alien humanoids from ?Star Trek? may be real. ------------------- Well, if aliens are using the same evolution natural law as humans, let's hope they have got past the 'kill the competition' phase. BillK From avant at sollegro.com Sat Apr 23 00:33:52 2022 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:33:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Supervenience and the Placebo was Re: willpower defined Message-ID: <20220422173352.Horde.3el6q_EbBwxYs2kvdsbf5De@sollegro.com> Quoting Bill Wallace: > Here we go again with definitions. An abstract concept only exists as we > define it. Not so. Many abstract concepts spookily exist independently of brains. The orbits of planets were ellipses long before intelligent primates named them such. An abstraction is in some ways a compression algorithm for reality. Like a shorthand symbol for a meaningful recurrent pattern or relationship between elements of set that still tries to maintain the "shape" of the set. Anything you expend the energy to define must has some value to you, your genes, your god or country. If you don't believe me, then believe Tolkien. His Hobbits ultimately proved to be worth billions. > Suppose I have an approach-avoidance conflict. I am stuck in the middle and > can't make up my mind. Trying to get rid of an addiction can be thought of > like this. In the brain there may be opposing excitatory and inhibitory > forces that are equal. Now I see something on tv or read in a book that > adds one iota to the approach side, making doing it more attractive, and so > I do the thing, whatever it is. I have trouble calling this willpower. It > may look like this to others. Call it whatever you want. Ganas, from Spanish is a fine word for it, also. > > Now consider all traits as being in a huge set. We pick out certain ones > and call the total willpower (or just about anything). Someone else comes > along and picks out a slightly different set and calls that willpower. The > two argue: one says that's more like persistence than willpower and the > other disagrees. Who is right? Neither. Both. One of them. Depending > on use of the word. Look at all the flap over the years about what to call > intelligence. Is it unitary? Multifaceted? Depends on who is picking out > the parts from the total set. OK. Maybe willpower is unnecessarily complicated to empirically test what I am getting at. Let's look at a well-established medical phenomenon replicated by labs the world-wide: the placebo effect. The idea being that the mind must be able to cause brain states because the placebo effect demonstrates that mind can cause body states including the curing of illness. And if the brain generates the mind, then it is the most convenient part of the body for the mind to influence. > Being forced to eat beets is a different force than what holds the Moon up > there. Pretty sure about that. > > Mind over matter is dualism and makes utterly no sense to me. bill w Bill, if you believe in the difference between hardware and software, then you are a dualist. If you don't believe that software can affect hardware, then you haven't been paying attention. Supervenience is bad philosophy because it doesn't explain empirical evidence. How can one explain the placebo effect, the ability for sugar pills to have a therapeutic effect based no more than on a belief, without dualism and downward causation and mind over matter? Stuart LaForge > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:37 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Quoting Bill Wallace: >> >> >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. >>>> >>>> Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective >> observer >>>> in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. >> In a >>>> year, check with the participants and their observers, to see whether >> they >>>> completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't complete' >>>> groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in the >>>> other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as >>>> possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is willpower >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, or some other more or less equivalent term. I think they need to >> be >>> matched on goals, the goals rated as to difficulty and so on. and I could >>> quibble a bit about their environments, but I more or less agree. bill w >> >> IMO, the most fascinating thing about will-power is that it exists and >> is thus quantifiable. The reason this is surprising is because modern >> functionalist, physicalists, and materialists insist that brain makes >> mind in a one way causal relationship termed supervenience. That is to >> say that a brain state should be able to cause and mind state but a >> mind state should not be able to cause a brain state. >> >> Since, even in cases of addiction, willpower is often defined >> colloquially as "mind over matter", this would violate supervenience >> because "mind over matter" would be labelled as downward causation and >> forbidden. >> >> Near as I can tell, willpower would have to defined as the triumph >> over-riding of one part of the brain against another. Such as one's >> frontal lobe overcoming ones limbic system and allowing one to fight >> off a craving for any particular stimulus. >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's >>>>> ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He >> talks >>>>> to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, facial >>>>> expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being >> upset. >>>>> She talks to him and they leave the party. >>>>> >>>>> Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know >> it's >>>>> not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We don't. >>>>> What we need is more observations of that couple in various situations >> and >>>>> maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. >> >> Jealousy might be another bizarrely "causal" states of mind. The sheer >> number of people that have through history been murdered by somebody >> in a fit of jealous rage should be relatively high. >> >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 23 03:13:29 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 20:13:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007001d856c0$1bc0f650$5342e2f0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe Is dark matter still just hypothetical? bill w We know it is there, still don?t know what it is. Something unseen is bending the hell outta spacetime in galaxies. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 14:09:56 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 09:09:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe In-Reply-To: <007001d856c0$1bc0f650$5342e2f0$@rainier66.com> References: <007001d856c0$1bc0f650$5342e2f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: According to a post some time back, it was stated that in outer space, atoms pop up out of nowhere. Do they go back to where they came from? Or stay here? Do they form a physical connection with another universe? If so, then couldn't the other universe affect ours in other ways, such as with gravity forces? bill w On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:15 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe > > > > Is dark matter still just hypothetical? bill w > > > > > > We know it is there, still don?t know what it is. Something unseen is > bending the hell outta spacetime in galaxies. > > > > 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 Apr 23 15:44:30 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 10:44:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Supervenience and the Placebo was Re: willpower defined In-Reply-To: <20220422173352.Horde.3el6q_EbBwxYs2kvdsbf5De@sollegro.com> References: <20220422173352.Horde.3el6q_EbBwxYs2kvdsbf5De@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 7:35 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting Bill Wallace: > > > > Here we go again with definitions. An abstract concept only exists as we > > define it. > > Not so. Many abstract concepts spookily exist independently of brains. I > think it takes a brain. > The orbits of planets were ellipses long before intelligent primates > named them such. An abstraction is in some ways a compression > algorithm for reality. Like a shorthand symbol for a meaningful > recurrent pattern or relationship between elements of set that still > tries to maintain the "shape" of the set. Anything you expend the > energy to define must has some value to you, your genes, your god or > country. If you don't believe me, then believe Tolkien. His Hobbits > ultimately proved to be worth billions. > > > > Suppose I have an approach-avoidance conflict. I am stuck in the middle > and > > can't make up my mind. Trying to get rid of an addiction can be thought > of > > like this. In the brain there may be opposing excitatory and inhibitory > > forces that are equal. Now I see something on tv or read in a book that > > adds one iota to the approach side, making doing it more attractive, and > so > > I do the thing, whatever it is. I have trouble calling this willpower. > It > > may look like this to others. > > Call it whatever you want. Ganas, from Spanish is a fine word for it, also. > > > > > Now consider all traits as being in a huge set. We pick out certain ones > > and call the total willpower (or just about anything). Someone else > comes > > along and picks out a slightly different set and calls that willpower. > The > > two argue: one says that's more like persistence than willpower and the > > other disagrees. Who is right? Neither. Both. One of them. Depending > > on use of the word. Look at all the flap over the years about what to > call > > intelligence. Is it unitary? Multifaceted? Depends on who is picking > out > > the parts from the total set. > > OK. Maybe willpower is unnecessarily complicated to empirically test > what I am getting at. Let's look at a well-established medical > phenomenon replicated by labs the world-wide: the placebo effect. The > idea being that the mind must be able to cause brain states because > the placebo effect demonstrates that mind can cause body states > including the curing of illness. And if the brain generates the mind, > then it is the most convenient part of the body for the mind to > influence. I certainly do not dispute the placebo effect, but I think I > am missing your point. > > > Being forced to eat beets is a different force than what holds the Moon > up > > there. Pretty sure about that. > > > > Mind over matter is dualism and makes utterly no sense to me. bill w > > Bill, if you believe in the difference between hardware and software, > then you are a dualist. If you don't believe that software can affect > hardware, then you haven't been paying attention. Supervenience is bad > philosophy because it doesn't explain empirical evidence. How can one > explain the placebo effect, the ability for sugar pills to have a > therapeutic effect based no more than on a belief, without dualism and > downward causation and mind over matter? A belief, like anything else, > is a product of our brains. There is no difference between what the brain > is doing and mind, except that a lot of things are being done, like > digesting food, that do not normally enter the mind. People can influence > their heart rates and blood pressure, though it takes biofeedback training > for most people. No, not a dualist in any sense. Brain activity does not > create mind - it IS mind - conscious and unconscious. bill w > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:37 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> Quoting Bill Wallace: > >> > >> > >>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. > >>>> > >>>> Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective > >> observer > >>>> in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. > >> In a > >>>> year, check with the participants and their observers, to see whether > >> they > >>>> completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't complete' > >>>> groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in > the > >>>> other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as > >>>> possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is > willpower > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yeah, or some other more or less equivalent term. I think they need to > >> be > >>> matched on goals, the goals rated as to difficulty and so on. and I > could > >>> quibble a bit about their environments, but I more or less agree. > bill w > >> > >> IMO, the most fascinating thing about will-power is that it exists and > >> is thus quantifiable. The reason this is surprising is because modern > >> functionalist, physicalists, and materialists insist that brain makes > >> mind in a one way causal relationship termed supervenience. That is to > >> say that a brain state should be able to cause and mind state but a > >> mind state should not be able to cause a brain state. > >> > >> Since, even in cases of addiction, willpower is often defined > >> colloquially as "mind over matter", this would violate supervenience > >> because "mind over matter" would be labelled as downward causation and > >> forbidden. > >> > >> Near as I can tell, willpower would have to defined as the triumph > >> over-riding of one part of the brain against another. Such as one's > >> frontal lobe overcoming ones limbic system and allowing one to fight > >> off a craving for any particular stimulus. > >> > >> Stuart LaForge > >> > >> > >> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > < > >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's > >>>>> ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He > >> talks > >>>>> to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, > facial > >>>>> expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being > >> upset. > >>>>> She talks to him and they leave the party. > >>>>> > >>>>> Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know > >> it's > >>>>> not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We > don't. > >>>>> What we need is more observations of that couple in various > situations > >> and > >>>>> maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. > >> > >> Jealousy might be another bizarrely "causal" states of mind. The sheer > >> number of people that have through history been murdered by somebody > >> in a fit of jealous rage should be relatively high. > >> > >> > >> 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: > > < > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220418/4d4cdc82/attachment-0001.htm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > 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 Apr 23 19:45:51 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 20:45:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe In-Reply-To: References: <007001d856c0$1bc0f650$5342e2f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:12, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > According to a post some time back, it was stated that in outer space, atoms pop up out of nowhere. Do they go back to where they came from? Or stay here? Do they form a physical connection with another universe? If so, then couldn't the other universe affect ours in other ways, such as with gravity forces? bill w > _______________________________________________ I thought I could reply to this, but quantum field theory gets complicated very quickly. :) Anything I write will probably have mistakes in it, but here goes....... It's not atoms that pop up in empty space. It is elementary particles, like quarks, much, much smaller than atoms. At the quantum level you have wave particle duality where a particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. They don't come from anywhere. There is a fluctuating quantum energy field throughout space. No connection to other universes. Now I had better go and hide before the real experts start criticizing that description. :) BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 23 23:46:10 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 18:46:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe In-Reply-To: References: <007001d856c0$1bc0f650$5342e2f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: 'Everything gotta be someplace'. In searching for things I have viewed this as my mantra. Wrong? bill w On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 2:49 PM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2022 at 15:12, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > wrote: > > According to a post some time back, it was stated that in outer space, > atoms pop up out of nowhere. Do they go back to where they came from? Or > stay here? Do they form a physical connection with another universe? If > so, then couldn't the other universe affect ours in other ways, such as > with gravity forces? bill w > > _______________________________________________ > > > I thought I could reply to this, but quantum field theory gets > complicated very quickly. :) > Anything I write will probably have mistakes in it, but here goes....... > > It's not atoms that pop up in empty space. It is elementary particles, > like quarks, much, much smaller than atoms. At the quantum level you > have wave particle duality where a particle or quantum entity may be > described as either a particle or a wave. They don't come from > anywhere. There is a fluctuating quantum energy field throughout > space. No connection to other universes. > > Now I had better go and hide before the real experts start criticizing > that description. :) > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Apr 24 05:40:22 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 22:40:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] tesla scavenging Message-ID: <000c01d8579d$cabb3ca0$6031b5e0$@rainier66.com> Hey cool, idea. The number of teslas whirring around town has made it appear to be the dominant brand. This means that they will be smiting immovable objects, other Detroits and each other regularly. Being considered a high-end car, they likely will not play well with a bent frame, but more importantly. proles might not want them refurbished after an accident, fearing that the repair guys missed a strained battery case, which could lead to a fire. If repaired, would you park this in your garage? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNiEPPVefUE However. the wrecked tesla would still have power modules in it that would be perfectly safe to use if you removed it from the suspect frame and used it for something else, such as. for RVs. I have two golf cart batteries in my camper for a combined weight of nearly 100kg, owwww. But I could get the same power storage with less than 30kg of Lithium cells. But the cost, owwww. So if someone took the storage cells outta the wrecked tesla and sold them for stuff like RVs, or for hobbyists to create a home-brew power wall for instance, wouldn't that be cool? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 05:54:39 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 00:54:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? Message-ID: I recently posted this question recently to the everything list , but I know many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, I thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: These "artificial life" forms, (seen here ), have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food" and "poison" in their environment. If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be conscious for the same reasons? Why or why not? Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 08:09:37 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 02:09:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jason, You had a long list of attributes in one of your replies to that list. *Consciousness is:* - Awareness of Information - A knowledge State - An Infinite Class (infinite possible variations and permutations, configurations) - A requirement for: Experience, Thought, Feeling, Knowing, Seeing, Noticing (can any of these things exist absent consciousness? E.g. some part of system that acts like it knows must really know.) - An activity (not a passive state of 0s and 1s, operations/behavior/actions give meaning and context to information and how it is processed and what it means) - Is it a recursive relationship? A model of environment including self? - Is it undefinable? - Word origin: "con" (together/with/unified/united) "scious" (knowledge): unified knowledge - It exists in the abstract informational state, not in the material - A meaningful interpretation of information *Information is:* - A difference that makes a difference - A comparison, differentiation, distinction - Specification / Indication - Negative entropy - A decrease in uncertainty - A probability of being in different states - Bits, digits, a number (representations of information) - A subspace of a larger space - A state of a finite state machine - Requires an interpreter (A system to be informed) to be meaningful *A subject is:* - A system to be informed - A processor of information - A knower (a believer) - An inside viewer - A first-person - A possessor of knowledge - An interpreter of information - A modeler of environment or self (or both) *Knowledge is:* - An apprehended truth - A true belief (bet) - Not always shareable (when self-referential) - A relationship between two objects or object and itself [image: 3_robots_tiny.png] In addition to all 3 of these systems being able to tell you something is red, each could also be engineered do everything in your list. Consciousness is less about functionality, than it is about "what is it like". A redness quality is not an intrinsic quality of the strawberry, it is a quality of your conscious knowledge of a strawberry. The only difference between the first 2 is a red green signal inverter in its optic nerve, changing the definition of redness for that one. You need a dictionary to know what the word red means. The intrinsic colorness quality your brains represents knowledge of red things with is your definition of the word red. All 3 could also be minimally engineered so that all they can do is tell you the strawberry, nothing more, including most of the stuff in your list. But I would still classify the first two as conscious, since both of their conscious knowledge is like something. The first one's redness is like your redness, the second one's is like your greenness, and the third one represents knowledge with strings of ones and zeros, all of which you need a dictionary to first know what the hardware representing each one or zero is, and after that, again, to know what the word 'red', made up of strings of those ones and zeros represents. Brent On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:55 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I recently posted this question recently to the everything list > , but I know > many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, I > thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: > > These "artificial life" forms, (seen here > ), > have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a > changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food" and > "poison" in their environment. > > If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they > have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be > conscious for the same reasons? > > Why or why not? > > Jason > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3_robots_tiny.png Type: image/png Size: 26214 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 09:16:06 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 10:16:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Planck era: Imagining our infant universe In-Reply-To: References: <007001d856c0$1bc0f650$5342e2f0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 00:49, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > 'Everything gotta be someplace'. In searching for things I have viewed this as my mantra. Wrong? bill w > _______________________________________________ That's OK when you are looking for where she's hidden the TV remote. :) But at the quantum level you can only talk about probabilities. Maybe it's a wave, maybe it's a particle, but "something" is around here "somewhere". See the double-slit experiment. Quote: In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. ----------- BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 11:32:43 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:32:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] tesla scavenging In-Reply-To: <000c01d8579d$cabb3ca0$6031b5e0$@rainier66.com> References: <000c01d8579d$cabb3ca0$6031b5e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 06:43, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > However? the wrecked tesla would still have power modules in it that would be perfectly safe to use if you removed it from the suspect frame and used it for something else, such as? for RVs. I have two golf cart batteries in my camper for a combined weight of nearly 100kg, owwww? But I could get the same power storage with less than 30kg of Lithium cells. But the cost, owwww? So if someone took the storage cells outta the wrecked tesla and sold them for stuff like RVs, or for hobbyists to create a home-brew power wall for instance, wouldn?t that be cool? > > spike > _______________________________________________ Tesla claims that it can recycle internally 100% of used Tesla car batteries. (And warns against tinkering with lithium car batteries unless you *really* know what you are doing). :) There are also businesses starting to dismantle Tesla batteries (not an easy task!) and repurposing them for sale, with all the additional electronics that are needed. Try some searching, like, 'repurposing tesla batteries'. BillK From ben at zaiboc.net Sun Apr 24 12:17:04 2022 From: ben at zaiboc.net (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 13:17:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> On 23/04/2022 00:45, billW wrote: > > According to Susie Bonds, an apparently well-known nutritionist, the > following are myths: > > 1 - carbs are fattening; same calorie count?as proteins per weight > > 2 - avoid fruit because of the sugar; the sugars are different from > table sugar and added sugars > > 3 - avoid anything white; mostly true, though for bread, pasta and > rice but don't shun potatoes onions, apples, milk, yogurt, bananas, > cauliflower > > 4 - avoid wheat because of the gluten; only those who are allergic > will benefit from avoiding wheat > > 5 - avoid white sugar;? all sugars convert to glucose in the body > > 6 - don't eat carbs late in the day; no studies support this > > I suspect that low carb diets work because people?eat too many bad > carbs; i.e. we will tend to overeat carbs where we wouldn't with > proteins. Low fat diets went out of style because of studies.? So - > eat a balanced diet.? How retro.? ?bill w Never heard of Suzie Bonds, but that's not really surprising. All of those points are so simplistic as to be almost worthless, not to mention that most of them are just plain wrong, together with wrong or irrelevant reasons why they are 'myths'. The whole thing is silly, really, not even worth going through point by point to refute them, they should be obvious. I expect Suzie Bonds is trying to sell a book to people gullible enough to believe what she says, contradictions and all, without even thinking about it. Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 14:33:13 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 09:33:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] web site Message-ID: *topics covered on the neuroscience site* *neurosciencenews.com bill w* Neuroscience | Neurology | AI | Robotics Brain Cancer | Psychology | Alzheimer's Parkinson's | Autism Mental Health | Concussions | Deep Learning Depression Bipolar | Brain Research | Machine Learning -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Apr 24 14:58:21 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 07:58:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] tesla scavenging In-Reply-To: References: <000c01d8579d$cabb3ca0$6031b5e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003501d857eb$bdda6fd0$398f4f70$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] tesla scavenging On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 at 06:43, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > >> ? So if someone took the storage cells outta the wrecked tesla and sold them for stuff like RVs, or for hobbyists to create a home-brew power wall for instance, wouldn?t that be cool? > > spike > _______________________________________________ >...Try some searching, like, 'repurposing tesla batteries'. Searching, bah. Humbug. That's the big problem BillK, other proles think of fun ideas before I do. Taint fair, I tells ya. >...Tesla claims that it can recycle internally 100% of used Tesla car batteries... It would be a fun project to instrument the batteries, rig up an Arduino or something, see what kind of duty cycle you can achieve. I can think of a number of fun contests: take modules out of the same wrecked Muskmobile, distribute them among competitors, play a game where they instrument the current in and out, the voltage across, the prole who transfers the most total energy in 20 days wins. We could set up a contest for maximum energy stored 20 days after the last charge input. I can think of a lot of games and contests we could do with these. >...(And warns against tinkering with lithium car batteries unless you *really* know what you are doing). :) We ja, but how does one get to the point where she knows what she is doing? It could be set up outdoors which would make our games far more forgiving. Backyard rope swing, doghouse, cat house, tesla house... >...There are also businesses starting to dismantle Tesla batteries (not an easy task!) and repurposing them for sale... Cool thx. So... why are they difficult to dismantle? Did you mean difficult to access and remove after unsuccessful flight and collision with internal-combustion propelled devices? >...with all the additional electronics that are needed. BillK _______________________________________________ Eh BillK, I don't want to buy theirs, I want to rig up my own. In violation of Elon's wishes, I don't know what I am doing, but I have a back yard and electronics skills, I have an Arduino, plus plenty of wire. All I don't have is a wrecked Tesla. But I note how many locals are whirring about in these things, I figure it is only a matter of time. spike From spike at rainier66.com Sun Apr 24 15:09:06 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 08:09:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> Message-ID: <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] carbs On 23/04/2022 00:45, billW wrote: >?According to Susie Bonds, an apparently well-known nutritionist, the following are myths: >? So - eat a balanced diet. How retro. bill w Billw, it is most remarkable how different and varied is heath and diet advice. Clearly some or perhaps most of it is just nonsense: we see paid advertisement on news channels which guarantee that sucking a lemon with cinnamon powder and a glass of ice water at bedtime burns 20 pounds a month. The point if the ad isn?t to help people lose weight or even sell lemons, it is to damage the credibility of the news site which ran the ad. For reasons we still don?t understand, the digestive systems of humans varies waaaay more than a typical mammal species. My best explanation is that technology enabled us to radiate all over the globe where digestive systems adapted to deal with whatever was available there. End result: much health advice and perhaps most diet advice is unhelpful, inadequate, incomplete, ineffective and often harmful to the general population. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Apr 24 15:36:57 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 08:36:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004401d857f1$22a25b30$67e71190$@rainier66.com> >?Billw?sucking a lemon with cinnamon powder and a glass of ice water at bedtime burns 20 pounds a month. The point if the ad isn?t to help people lose weight or even sell lemons, it is to damage the credibility of the news site which ran the ad? An example is shown above. Imagine a news site will run ads for anyone willing to buy ad space. Someone buys an add saying it will improve mileage 55% if you pour a bottle of cola into the tank. Poor person, owns little, earns little, pours cola into the tank, surprise! The car doesn?t run at all. 100% savings on fuel. The cost of draining the tank, fuel lines and manifold of contaminant might be a significant fraction of the value of the junky old car. Result: one fewer gasoline burning vehicle on the road, one more probably homeless person under the nearest bridge. The ad runner has done her part to combat global warming. The above scenario is a good analog for the current debate over whether to filter the internet, purge it of disinformation. I am all for it, if disinformation is defined by? me. If I get to define disinformation (with no appeal or oversight) I am all for it. Otherwise I oppose it. But clearly there exists disinformation and some of it is very harmful to the gullible. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 8429 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Apr 24 18:18:09 2022 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 11:18:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Supervenience and the Placebo Message-ID: <20220424111809.Horde.TwUYWTDqjxGshRgtxVg1C6x@sollegro.com> Quoting Bill Wallace: > A belief, like anything else, > is a product of our brains. "Like anything else?" Do you not believe in facts or simple objective truths? Do you not believe in the existence of trees that you do not hear fall? There are beliefs that fit the facts and those that don't. The that mind is not an abstraction of the material reality is actually > There is no difference between what the brain > is doing and mind, except that a lot of things are being done, like > digesting food, that do not normally enter the mind. Sure there is. Your brain and my brain are doing the same shit. But your mind and my mind are clearly not the same. What distinguishes you, Professor, if not your mind? > People can influence > their heart rates and blood pressure, though it takes biofeedback training > for most people. Thank you. Biofeedback and its well-documented existence is another clear empirical example of downward causation. > No, not a dualist in any sense. Brain activity does not > create mind - it IS mind - conscious and unconscious. bill w Then why is anesthesia not permanent? If loss of brain-function is loss of mind and self, then why do not most patients not die or forget themselves forever on the operating table? What makes you wake up believing you are human after you have dreamt you were a hummingbird? Stuart LaForge >> >> Quoting Bill Wallace: >> >> >>> Here we go again with definitions. An abstract concept only exists as we >>> define it. >> >> Not so. Many abstract concepts spookily exist independently of brains. I >> think it takes a brain. >> The orbits of planets were ellipses long before intelligent primates >> named them such. An abstraction is in some ways a compression >> algorithm for reality. Like a shorthand symbol for a meaningful >> recurrent pattern or relationship between elements of set that still >> tries to maintain the "shape" of the set. Anything you expend the >> energy to define must has some value to you, your genes, your god or >> country. If you don't believe me, then believe Tolkien. His Hobbits >> ultimately proved to be worth billions. >> >> >>> Suppose I have an approach-avoidance conflict. I am stuck in the middle >> and >>> can't make up my mind. Trying to get rid of an addiction can be thought >> of >>> like this. In the brain there may be opposing excitatory and inhibitory >>> forces that are equal. Now I see something on tv or read in a book that >>> adds one iota to the approach side, making doing it more attractive, and >> so >>> I do the thing, whatever it is. I have trouble calling this willpower. >> It >>> may look like this to others. >> >> Call it whatever you want. Ganas, from Spanish is a fine word for it, also. >> >>> >>> Now consider all traits as being in a huge set. We pick out certain ones >>> and call the total willpower (or just about anything). Someone else >> comes >>> along and picks out a slightly different set and calls that willpower. >> The >>> two argue: one says that's more like persistence than willpower and the >>> other disagrees. Who is right? Neither. Both. One of them. Depending >>> on use of the word. Look at all the flap over the years about what to >> call >>> intelligence. Is it unitary? Multifaceted? Depends on who is picking >> out >>> the parts from the total set. >> >> OK. Maybe willpower is unnecessarily complicated to empirically test >> what I am getting at. Let's look at a well-established medical >> phenomenon replicated by labs the world-wide: the placebo effect. The >> idea being that the mind must be able to cause brain states because >> the placebo effect demonstrates that mind can cause body states >> including the curing of illness. And if the brain generates the mind, >> then it is the most convenient part of the body for the mind to >> influence. I certainly do not dispute the placebo effect, but I think I >> am missing your point. >> >>> Being forced to eat beets is a different force than what holds the Moon >> up >>> there. Pretty sure about that. >>> >>> Mind over matter is dualism and makes utterly no sense to me. bill w >> >> Bill, if you believe in the difference between hardware and software, >> then you are a dualist. If you don't believe that software can affect >> hardware, then you haven't been paying attention. Supervenience is bad >> philosophy because it doesn't explain empirical evidence. How can one >> explain the placebo effect, the ability for sugar pills to have a >> therapeutic effect based no more than on a belief, without dualism and >> downward causation and mind over matter? A belief, like anything else, >> is a product of our brains. There is no difference between what the brain >> is doing and mind, except that a lot of things are being done, like >> digesting food, that do not normally enter the mind. People can influence >> their heart rates and blood pressure, though it takes biofeedback training >> for most people. No, not a dualist in any sense. Brain activity does not >> create mind - it IS mind - conscious and unconscious. bill w >> >> Stuart LaForge >> >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:37 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Quoting Bill Wallace: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. >>>>>> >>>>>> Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective >>>> observer >>>>>> in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. >>>> In a >>>>>> year, check with the participants and their observers, to see whether >>>> they >>>>>> completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't complete' >>>>>> groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in >> the >>>>>> other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as >>>>>> possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is >> willpower >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, or some other more or less equivalent term. I think they need to >>>> be >>>>> matched on goals, the goals rated as to difficulty and so on. and I >> could >>>>> quibble a bit about their environments, but I more or less agree. >> bill w >>>> >>>> IMO, the most fascinating thing about will-power is that it exists and >>>> is thus quantifiable. The reason this is surprising is because modern >>>> functionalist, physicalists, and materialists insist that brain makes >>>> mind in a one way causal relationship termed supervenience. That is to >>>> say that a brain state should be able to cause and mind state but a >>>> mind state should not be able to cause a brain state. >>>> >>>> Since, even in cases of addiction, willpower is often defined >>>> colloquially as "mind over matter", this would violate supervenience >>>> because "mind over matter" would be labelled as downward causation and >>>> forbidden. >>>> >>>> Near as I can tell, willpower would have to defined as the triumph >>>> over-riding of one part of the brain against another. Such as one's >>>> frontal lobe overcoming ones limbic system and allowing one to fight >>>> off a craving for any particular stimulus. >>>> >>>> Stuart LaForge >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat >> < >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's >>>>>>> ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. He >>>> talks >>>>>>> to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, >> facial >>>>>>> expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being >>>> upset. >>>>>>> She talks to him and they leave the party. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know >>>> it's >>>>>>> not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We >> don't. >>>>>>> What we need is more observations of that couple in various >> situations >>>> and >>>>>>> maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. >>>> >>>> Jealousy might be another bizarrely "causal" states of mind. The sheer >>>> number of people that have through history been murdered by somebody >>>> in a fit of jealous rage should be relatively high. >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: >>> < >> http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220418/4d4cdc82/attachment-0001.htm >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I very much doubt if there is any other animal that eats such a varied diet as we do. Bacteria and other gut guys like some of it, dislike some of it, maybe even killed by some of it. So we have the greatest variety of microbes. I do not think we will solve the problem of diets until we understand the gut. We know that we can create obese and skinny lab animals by manipulating microbes. We know that we can exchange blood between two animals and change their eating habits. I suspect we will knock this out in ten to twenty years. (I won't be here, but then I eat what I want and have no problems of any kind with weight or food.) My a1c went from 6.3 to 5.8 just by eating fewer desserts (actually I never skip a dessert - I eat less of it or I pass on the second dessert - if I have great sex I have three desserts, but the frequency of that has fallen off quite a bit) bill w On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:11 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] carbs > > > > > > On 23/04/2022 00:45, billW wrote: > > > > >?According to Susie Bonds, an apparently well-known nutritionist, the > following are myths: > > > > >? So - eat a balanced diet. How retro. bill w > > > > > > Billw, it is most remarkable how different and varied is heath and diet > advice. Clearly some or perhaps most of it is just nonsense: we see paid > advertisement on news channels which guarantee that sucking a lemon with > cinnamon powder and a glass of ice water at bedtime burns 20 pounds a > month. The point if the ad isn?t to help people lose weight or even sell > lemons, it is to damage the credibility of the news site which ran the ad. > > > > For reasons we still don?t understand, the digestive systems of humans > varies waaaay more than a typical mammal species. My best explanation is > that technology enabled us to radiate all over the globe where digestive > systems adapted to deal with whatever was available there. > > > > End result: much health advice and perhaps most diet advice is unhelpful, > inadequate, incomplete, ineffective and often harmful to the general > population. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 18:34:19 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 13:34:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Supervenience and the Placebo In-Reply-To: <20220424111809.Horde.TwUYWTDqjxGshRgtxVg1C6x@sollegro.com> References: <20220424111809.Horde.TwUYWTDqjxGshRgtxVg1C6x@sollegro.com> Message-ID: What makes you wake up believing you are human after you have dreamt you were a hummingbird? I did dream during a childhood operation performed on ether - two separate occasion. In one I was one of the Three LIttle PIgs. We were eaten by the wolf but ate his cheeks and climbed out. The other was riding a lightning bolt down to Earth. To my right was another lightning bolt ridden b the Devil, who was vowing to get me. Just because my conscious mind is asleep doesn't mean all of it is inhibited. > A belief, like anything else, > is a product of our brains. "Like anything else?" Do you not believe in facts or simple objective truths? Do you not believe in the existence of trees that you do not hear fall? There are beliefs that fit the facts and those that don't. The that mind is not an abstraction of the material reality is actually ?? Yeah, I believe all of that. Waiting for you to finish the sentence. Your brain and my brain are doing the same shit. But your mind and my mind are clearly not the same. What distinguishes you, Professor, if not your mind? I hope my mind is distinguished. Everyone's mind is different in many ways , largely through programming. Mostly do not understand your comment. Then why is anesthesia not permanent? If loss of brain-function is loss of mind and self, then why do not most patients not die or forget themselves forever on the operating table? I also do not understand this. There is no brain damage under anesthesia, only inhibition of some brain centers, which stops when the drug is stopped. bill w On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 1:20 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Quoting Bill Wallace: > > > A belief, like anything else, > > is a product of our brains. > > "Like anything else?" Do you not believe in facts or simple objective > truths? Do you not believe in the existence of trees that you do not > hear fall? There are beliefs that fit the facts and those that don't. > The that mind is not an abstraction of the material reality is actually > > > There is no difference between what the brain > > is doing and mind, except that a lot of things are being done, like > > digesting food, that do not normally enter the mind. > > Sure there is. Your brain and my brain are doing the same shit. But > your mind and my mind are clearly not the same. What distinguishes > you, Professor, if not your mind? > > > People can influence > > their heart rates and blood pressure, though it takes biofeedback > training > > for most people. > > Thank you. Biofeedback and its well-documented existence is another > clear empirical example of downward causation. > > > No, not a dualist in any sense. Brain activity does not > > create mind - it IS mind - conscious and unconscious. bill w > > Then why is anesthesia not permanent? If loss of brain-function is > loss of mind and self, then why do not most patients not die or forget > themselves forever on the operating table? What makes you wake up > believing you are human after you have dreamt you were a hummingbird? > > Stuart LaForge > > > > > >> > >> Quoting Bill Wallace: > >> > >> > >>> Here we go again with definitions. An abstract concept only exists as > we > >>> define it. > >> > >> Not so. Many abstract concepts spookily exist independently of brains. I > >> think it takes a brain. > >> The orbits of planets were ellipses long before intelligent primates > >> named them such. An abstraction is in some ways a compression > >> algorithm for reality. Like a shorthand symbol for a meaningful > >> recurrent pattern or relationship between elements of set that still > >> tries to maintain the "shape" of the set. Anything you expend the > >> energy to define must has some value to you, your genes, your god or > >> country. If you don't believe me, then believe Tolkien. His Hobbits > >> ultimately proved to be worth billions. > >> > >> > >>> Suppose I have an approach-avoidance conflict. I am stuck in the middle > >> and > >>> can't make up my mind. Trying to get rid of an addiction can be > thought > >> of > >>> like this. In the brain there may be opposing excitatory and > inhibitory > >>> forces that are equal. Now I see something on tv or read in a book > that > >>> adds one iota to the approach side, making doing it more attractive, > and > >> so > >>> I do the thing, whatever it is. I have trouble calling this willpower. > >> It > >>> may look like this to others. > >> > >> Call it whatever you want. Ganas, from Spanish is a fine word for it, > also. > >> > >>> > >>> Now consider all traits as being in a huge set. We pick out certain > ones > >>> and call the total willpower (or just about anything). Someone else > >> comes > >>> along and picks out a slightly different set and calls that willpower. > >> The > >>> two argue: one says that's more like persistence than willpower and > the > >>> other disagrees. Who is right? Neither. Both. One of them. > Depending > >>> on use of the word. Look at all the flap over the years about what to > >> call > >>> intelligence. Is it unitary? Multifaceted? Depends on who is picking > >> out > >>> the parts from the total set. > >> > >> OK. Maybe willpower is unnecessarily complicated to empirically test > >> what I am getting at. Let's look at a well-established medical > >> phenomenon replicated by labs the world-wide: the placebo effect. The > >> idea being that the mind must be able to cause brain states because > >> the placebo effect demonstrates that mind can cause body states > >> including the curing of illness. And if the brain generates the mind, > >> then it is the most convenient part of the body for the mind to > >> influence. I certainly do not dispute the placebo effect, but I think I > >> am missing your point. > >> > >>> Being forced to eat beets is a different force than what holds the Moon > >> up > >>> there. Pretty sure about that. > >>> > >>> Mind over matter is dualism and makes utterly no sense to me. bill w > >> > >> Bill, if you believe in the difference between hardware and software, > >> then you are a dualist. If you don't believe that software can affect > >> hardware, then you haven't been paying attention. Supervenience is bad > >> philosophy because it doesn't explain empirical evidence. How can one > >> explain the placebo effect, the ability for sugar pills to have a > >> therapeutic effect based no more than on a belief, without dualism and > >> downward causation and mind over matter? A belief, like anything else, > >> is a product of our brains. There is no difference between what the > brain > >> is doing and mind, except that a lot of things are being done, like > >> digesting food, that do not normally enter the mind. People can > influence > >> their heart rates and blood pressure, though it takes biofeedback > training > >> for most people. No, not a dualist in any sense. Brain activity does > not > >> create mind - it IS mind - conscious and unconscious. bill w > >> > >> Stuart LaForge > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:37 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < > >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Quoting Bill Wallace: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:37 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Not every experiment has to be done like a clinical trial. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Take 100,000 people. Also have each of them them to an objective > >>>> observer > >>>>>> in their life. Ask each of the 10000 their goals for the next year. > >>>> In a > >>>>>> year, check with the participants and their observers, to see > whether > >>>> they > >>>>>> completed their goals. Split the 'did complete' and 'didn't > complete' > >>>>>> groups into 2. Match individuals in each group to an individual in > >> the > >>>>>> other who is matched in terms of income, race, age, sex, as much as > >>>>>> possible. Discard unmatched participants. The difference is > >> willpower > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yeah, or some other more or less equivalent term. I think they need > to > >>>> be > >>>>> matched on goals, the goals rated as to difficulty and so on. and I > >> could > >>>>> quibble a bit about their environments, but I more or less agree. > >> bill w > >>>> > >>>> IMO, the most fascinating thing about will-power is that it exists and > >>>> is thus quantifiable. The reason this is surprising is because modern > >>>> functionalist, physicalists, and materialists insist that brain makes > >>>> mind in a one way causal relationship termed supervenience. That is to > >>>> say that a brain state should be able to cause and mind state but a > >>>> mind state should not be able to cause a brain state. > >>>> > >>>> Since, even in cases of addiction, willpower is often defined > >>>> colloquially as "mind over matter", this would violate supervenience > >>>> because "mind over matter" would be labelled as downward causation and > >>>> forbidden. > >>>> > >>>> Near as I can tell, willpower would have to defined as the triumph > >>>> over-riding of one part of the brain against another. Such as one's > >>>> frontal lobe overcoming ones limbic system and allowing one to fight > >>>> off a craving for any particular stimulus. > >>>> > >>>> Stuart LaForge > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 1:20 PM William Flynn Wallace via > extropy-chat > >> < > >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> EXample: a couple, male and female, go to a party. The guy's > >>>>>>> ex-girlfriend is there. We observe his interactions with people. > He > >>>> talks > >>>>>>> to others, including the ex and his date observes body language, > >> facial > >>>>>>> expressions and so on. We see signs in her of anger and just being > >>>> upset. > >>>>>>> She talks to him and they leave the party. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Well, does that look like jealousy? Sure does. But how do we know > >>>> it's > >>>>>>> not a stomachache? Or leaving to study for a test? Or or or.We > >> don't. > >>>>>>> What we need is more observations of that couple in various > >> situations > >>>> and > >>>>>>> maybe just interview them and ask what is going on. > >>>> > >>>> Jealousy might be another bizarrely "causal" states of mind. The sheer > >>>> number of people that have through history been murdered by somebody > >>>> in a fit of jealous rage should be relatively high. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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: > >>> < > >> > http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20220418/4d4cdc82/attachment-0001.htm > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> extropy-chat mailing list > >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > >> > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Sun Apr 24 18:44:40 2022 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 11:44:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20220424114440.Horde.p4C0CYdPUpNQo0wIL1Fz9dk@sollegro.com> Quoting Jason Resch: > I recently posted this question recently to the everything list > , but I know > many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, I > thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: > > These "artificial life" forms, (seen here > ), > have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a > changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food" and > "poison" in their environment. > > If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they have > brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be > conscious for the same reasons? > > Why or why not? Yes, no, or to a certain degree, Depending on your definition of consciousness. Consciousness is a multidimensional concept. Since you qualified consciousness as applying to insects and worms, then I will lower the bar appropriately. I would say by your reasoning, yes such programs are conscious, but barely. I would introduce as a technical term the word "sensate" as more accurate description of their behavior. It is clear that the digital organisms are conscious enough of their simple virtual environments to feed themselves. It is just as clear that Alpha Zero and it's ilk are supremely conscious of the virtual chessboard that makes up the entirety of its universe after a few hours of teraflop training. As a nuance, I would treat consciousness as a scaled phenomena, with simple biochemical feedback loops and simple servo-sensors like thermostats on one end and the Omega-Point-like universal intelligence on the other. Maybe call it a Psi-index or Chi-index. 0 for completely inanimate matter to 1 for God. Just saying. :) Stuart LaForge Stuart LaForge From spike at rainier66.com Sun Apr 24 18:55:40 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 11:55:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001801d8580c$e4eae200$aec0a600$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] carbs >? We know that we can exchange blood between two animals and change their eating habits. ? bill w I never heard that one. How would it work? Does it work on humans? If so? hey cool, we will make a buttload: recruit bony asses, let them sell their blood for a coupla hundred a pint, we take a cut, maybe it works to some extent, and if not, well it can?t be worse than some of the diet advice I see all over the internet. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Apr 24 19:02:02 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 12:02:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: <001801d8580c$e4eae200$aec0a600$@rainier66.com> References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> <001801d8580c$e4eae200$aec0a600$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001f01d8580d$c8c59240$5a50b6c0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com ? Subject: Re: [ExI] carbs >? maybe it works to some extent, and if not, well it can?t be worse than some of the diet advice I see all over the internet. spike Ooops retract, that strategy could be waaaaay worse than bad diet advice. A prole can catch all kindsa bad stuff from blood, and a bony ass starts out vaguely suspect. They already look me over twice and three times every time I go in there to donate. I have had the workers ask me outright if I am donating for the small cash reward they used to give (they don?t pay donors anymore (for good reason.)) Billw how does a transfusion have anything to do with eating habits please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 21:39:53 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 16:39:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: <001f01d8580d$c8c59240$5a50b6c0$@rainier66.com> References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> <001801d8580c$e4eae200$aec0a600$@rainier66.com> <001f01d8580d$c8c59240$5a50b6c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The blood from the mouse/rat/?? transferred to another subject contains something that stops eating. A deprived rat just starts eating and then gets the blood and stops eating even though he is deprived. Do it in reverse and a rat which had gorged to his satisfactions starts eating again. What the blood stuff is they don't know. Probably some hormone from the hypothalamus, which controls eating, as previously posted. They are doing fecal 'transplants' with people for the purpose of curing bowel problems and that works, so if you can't sell your blood, maybe you can keep some hope for selling your shit. bill On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 2:03 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* spike at rainier66.com > *?* > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] carbs > > > > >? maybe it works to some extent, and if not, well it can?t be worse > than some of the diet advice I see all over the internet. spike > > > > > > > > Ooops retract, that strategy could be waaaaay worse than bad diet advice. > A prole can catch all kindsa bad stuff from blood, and a bony ass starts > out vaguely suspect. They already look me over twice and three times every > time I go in there to donate. I have had the workers ask me outright if I > am donating for the small cash reward they used to give (they don?t pay > donors anymore (for good reason.)) > > > > Billw how does a transfusion have anything to do with eating habits please? > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 22:36:49 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 16:36:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jason, Yes, we've got to at include the ExI list, for Stathis' (and other's?) sake. He is in the more popular Functionalist camp, which you, like so many, appear to agree with. The Molecular Material camp just considers "philosophical zombies" to be absurd. Especially since they are normally defined in a way that different qualia may or may not 'superven' on top of identical physical reality. this is just absurd and is not scientifically falsifiable. I prefer falsifiable theoretical science to unfalsifiable philosophy. Also, as we point out in our video: functionalists are no better than dualists, as they separate qualia from physical reality. Despite how many times I've asked Stathis for a way to falsify his theory, he has yet to describe how functionalism may be falsified. So to me, it is no better than dualism. All he seems to do is qualia, like redness and greenness, aren't possible, because they, themselves are substrate on which consciousness is composed. And of course I've considered "tetrachromats" which have 4 primary colors, and shimp that must have a lot more than that. As I always say, I pity the bi (2 primary colors or color blind people) or even worse the achromatic (black and white only) people, and can't wait till I (a mere trichromat) discover what not only it is like for a tetrachromat, but what it is like for all those 16 primary color shrimp. A brain like that is what I want to be uploaded to, and how many more physical colors could be discovered after that???? Even if we discover hundreds, with many thousands of shades of each, that is still a long way from infinite. And you still seem to be missing something when you say: "in any conscious state one finds oneself [in], one can only ever know... that one state." and the way you talk about computational binding like: "less-than or greater-than comparison operations, equality tests". These kinds of comparisons are always done between specific things or facts of the matter. That's what computation abou tobjects is. Your one composite qualitative experience of the strawberry includes both redness and greenness. [image: 3_robots_tiny.png] While it is true, all of these 3 different systems can function the same. In that they can all distinguish between and tell you the strawberry is red, or not. But that is missing the point of the factual qualitative differences of each of these, and the physical qualities they are using to represent these differences, or the fact that their knowledge is intentionally abstracted away from any physical qualities that may be representing them in a way that requires a dictionary. You can't get substrate independence, without a dictionary for each different representation that may or maynot be representing the ones or zeros. Representing knowledge like the fist two does not require a dictionary, which is far more efficient than the 3rd, which does required an additional dictionary. The same way software runs faster directly on physical hardware, vs running on virtual machines (requires a functional mapping dictionary to different functioning hardware). Which brings me to the 3rd strongest form of effing the ineffable, which was portrayed in the movie avatar with Neural ponytails. These could function like the Corpus collosum which can computationally bind knowledge represented in the left hemisphere with knowledge represented in the right. With a neural ponytail like that, you would experience all of the experience, not just half. If the first two systems in the above image (one's redness is like your greenness) they would directly experience this difference, just the same as if your left field of vision was looking through red/green inverted glasses. It is called "4. the strongest form" of effing the ineffable, because what you directly apprehend is infallible or cannot be doubted the same way "I think, therefore I am" cannot be doubted. Brent On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 3:05 PM Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 4:17 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > >> >> >> Hi Jason, This is GREAT! You clearly understand a LOT about >> consciousness, but there are two minor things I believe you are missing. >> > > Thank you for saying so and for helping clear up any gaps in my > understanding. > > > >> >> *First off*, let?s distinguish between an elemental quale(singular) and >> computationally bound composite qualia(plural). There is LOTS of other >> memory stuff bound in with that elemental redness you experience when you >> look at that red strawberry. >> > > I agree with this. There were some experiments done recently that found > the speed at which one could pick out different colors was related to color > names that exist in one's native language. It got me wondering whether the > quale of colors might be shaded by labels from one's language centers of > the brain. > > All of this, together is a composite, computationally bound conscious >> experience. And sure, there are an infinite number of different possible >> composite experiences, just as there are an infinite number of paintings >> which can be painted with a finite set of elemental colors. >> > > True but I think it goes beyond this. The raw qualia of consciousness are, > I think, as varied as the objects and relationships that exist in > mathematics. > > > >> [image: 3_robots_tiny.png] >> >> >> >> The prediction is that there is an elemental quale level out of which all >> composite qualia are composed. Just like it is a fact that there is a >> finite set of physical elements (at least that we currently know of) there >> is a finite set of elemental qualia that all humans have experienced to >> date. >> > > Have you considered human tetrachromats? People with four types of color > sensing cones that can distinguish 100s of times more colors than normally > sighted humans? > > Also, there are relational differences between the colors. In that black > is a singular straw while white cones in various degrees of brightness. > Blue can be seen as the subtraction of yellow from white, while red can be > seen as the subtraction of green from yellow. So at their basic level, > there is no symmetry between the primary colors, they each have a uniquely > defined relationship in the three dimensional color space. > > > (Obviously a falsifiable prediction, but until it is falsified.... we >> don't yet need more primary colors). >> > > There are so e shrimp, I believe that have 16 different color sensing > cones. Does that not mean that in theory their brain could construct a 16 > dimensional color space with 16 different primary colors? > > > The quality you experience when you look at the strawberry in this picture >> is just an objectively observable physical fact. >> > > I would challenge the assertion that it is a physical fact, on the basis > that the number of computational states a brain or computer could > instantiate is untethered to the physics of this universe. Any universe in > which it is possible to build a computer can instantiate the computational > relations that may be found in any brain or computer of any other universe. > This is a direct consequence of the "universality" property of computers. > Why any computer may compute is independent of it's substrate, material > make up, or architecture. > > The prediction is that there is a finite set of these elemental >> intrinsic qualities, like redness and greenness, out of which brains can >> compose an infinite number of conscious experiences. >> > > > This is an interesting idea. For what it's worth I think it could be true, > but I would argue that the "atoms" of consciousness exist at a much lower > level than red or green (which seem to require vast resources of billions > of neurons to construct our visual field). Instead I think the raw elements > of consciousness, if they exist, would be at more fundamental levels: > > if-statements, less-than or greater-than comparison operations, equality > tests, truth tables, etc. I think these operations are the most primitive > forms of reacting to or responding to information, and a more complex quale > is built up of some combination of these relations that can create > arbitrarily complex and large state-spaces. > > >> >> *Second*, you made a falsifiable claim: ?we are only ever privileged to >> know "what it is like" in a single particular view at a single particular >> instant.? >> >> >> >> Then you backtracked with this: >> >> >> >> ?If certain functions or behaviors require a first person >> experience/experiencer, then this may provide a method by which we could >> study or at least detect consciousness in others.? >> > > I don't consider that a backtrack. My first point is only meant to say: in > any conscious state one finds oneself, one can only ever know and that one > state. Even a consideration of a memory is just a particular case of a > single conscious state existing at one moment in time. > > My second point is meant to suggest my belief that philosophical zombies > are impossible. Though false appearances of "non conscious actions that > appear consciously driven" can exist for arbitrarily long lengths of time, > they become exponentially unlikely to continue with increasing time. > > The impossibility of zombies has consequences for many theories of mind, > including molecular materialism. > > Does molecular materialism predict philosophical zombies are possible? > > > >> >> I?m in the Molecular Material >> >> camp which is predicting you are not quite backtracking in the right way. >> As I said, above, the quality your brain uses to represent red things with >> is just a physical fact. It is only a matter of time till we objectively >> discover exactly what your redness is. Once we objectively know that, >> (that will give us the required dictionary for the term "your redness") we >> will then be able to objectively observe whether this is the same >> definition for "my redness". And this is only the "1. Weakest form of >> effing the ineffable." There are also the "2: stronger firms?", and "3: >> Strongest forms" of effing the ineffable. >> >> >> For more information about the difference between ?*perceiving*? >> physical facts vs ?*directly apprehending* intrinsic qualities of >> knowledge?, check out the ?Differentiating between reality and knowledge >> of reality >> ? >> chapter in our video. >> >> >> > > Thank you. I agree there's a difference between reality and knowledge of > reality, though by definition the only parts of reality that can be known > is the knowledge of reality (in other words, those that emerge as states of > consciousness). > > Perhaps this is the basis of the Hindu belief that Brahman (all of > reality) is Atman (all of consciousness). > > > P.S. I noticed in my reply I accidentally dropped the extropy chat list. > Feel free to copy that list in your reply, or we can keep this one to one, > whatever your preference may be. > > Jason > > > >> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:00 AM Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 4:09 AM Brent Allsop >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Jason, >>>> >>>> You had a long list of attributes in one of your replies to that list. >>>> >>>> *Consciousness is:* >>>> >>>> - Awareness of Information >>>> - A knowledge State >>>> - An Infinite Class (infinite possible variations and permutations, >>>> configurations) >>>> - A requirement for: Experience, Thought, Feeling, Knowing, Seeing, >>>> Noticing (can any of these things exist absent consciousness? E.g. some >>>> part of system that acts like it knows must really know.) >>>> - An activity (not a passive state of 0s and 1s, >>>> operations/behavior/actions give meaning and context to information and how >>>> it is processed and what it means) >>>> - Is it a recursive relationship? A model of environment including >>>> self? >>>> - Is it undefinable? >>>> - Word origin: "con" (together/with/unified/united) "scious" >>>> (knowledge): unified knowledge >>>> - It exists in the abstract informational state, not in the material >>>> - A meaningful interpretation of information >>>> >>>> *Information is:* >>>> >>>> - A difference that makes a difference >>>> - A comparison, differentiation, distinction >>>> - Specification / Indication >>>> - Negative entropy >>>> - A decrease in uncertainty >>>> - A probability of being in different states >>>> - Bits, digits, a number (representations of information) >>>> - A subspace of a larger space >>>> - A state of a finite state machine >>>> - Requires an interpreter (A system to be informed) to be meaningful >>>> >>>> *A subject is:* >>>> >>>> - A system to be informed >>>> - A processor of information >>>> - A knower (a believer) >>>> - An inside viewer >>>> - A first-person >>>> - A possessor of knowledge >>>> - An interpreter of information >>>> - A modeler of environment or self (or both) >>>> >>>> *Knowledge is:* >>>> >>>> - An apprehended truth >>>> - A true belief (bet) >>>> - Not always shareable (when self-referential) >>>> - A relationship between two objects or object and itself >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: 3_robots_tiny.png] >>>> In addition to all 3 of these systems being able to tell you something >>>> is red, each could also be engineered do everything in your list. >>>> >>>> Consciousness is less about functionality, than it is about "what is it >>>> like". >>>> >>> >>> I can agree with this statement. However we are only ever privileged to >>> know "what it is like" in a single particular view at a single particular >>> instant. >>> >>> When studying the plausible existence of this phenomenon in others, we >>> are limited to analyzing third person observable properties, such as >>> material composition, information content, and activities such as function >>> and behavior. >>> >>> If certain functions or behaviors require a first person >>> experience/experiencer, then this may provide a method by which we could >>> study or at least detect consciousness in others. >>> >>> >>>> A redness quality is not an intrinsic quality of the strawberry, it is >>>> a quality of your conscious knowledge of a strawberry. >>>> >>> >>> I agree redness is a feature that exists only in some conscious minds. >>> >>> I believe there are infinite ways a mind can be organized and therefore >>> sn infinite number of possible qualia. There's no fundamental limit on the >>> number of colors that could exist and be perceived, even the number of >>> primary colors is in theory infinite. What any of them "look like" comes >>> down entirely to the mind in question. >>> >>> The only difference between the first 2 is a red green signal inverter >>>> in its optic nerve, changing the definition of redness for that one. You >>>> need a dictionary to know what the word red means. The intrinsic colorness >>>> quality your brains represents knowledge of red things with is your >>>> definition of the word red. >>>> >>> >>> Then there's really no common meaning of the word red, given the >>> different brains involved, just as there's no common meaning of the taste >>> of cilantro (which tastes like an herb to some people and like soap to >>> other people). >>> >>> >>>> All 3 could also be minimally engineered so that all they can do is >>>> tell you the strawberry, nothing more, including most of the stuff in your >>>> list. But I would still classify the first two as conscious, since both of >>>> their conscious knowledge is like something. The first one's redness is >>>> like your redness, the second one's is like your greenness, and the third >>>> one represents knowledge with strings of ones and zeros, all of which you >>>> need a dictionary to first know what the hardware representing each one or >>>> zero is, and after that, again, to know what the word 'red', made up of >>>> strings of those ones and zeros represents. >>>> >>> >>> Though perhaps differently consciousness, would you still say the third >>> one is conscious? Is it like something to be able to discriminate between >>> two or more possibilities and know which one it is? Even if that knowledge >>> is of a single bit, is that not some small element of conscious awareness >>> for which it is something to be like? >>> >>> Jason >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:55 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I recently posted this question recently to the everything list >>>>> , but I >>>>> know many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, >>>>> I thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: >>>>> >>>>> These "artificial life" forms, (seen here >>>>> ), >>>>> have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a >>>>> changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food" and >>>>> "poison" in their environment. >>>>> >>>>> If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they >>>>> have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be >>>>> conscious for the same reasons? >>>>> >>>>> Why or why not? >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3_robots_tiny.png Type: image/png Size: 26214 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3_robots_tiny.png Type: image/png Size: 26214 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3_robots_tiny.png Type: image/png Size: 26214 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sun Apr 24 23:29:36 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 16:29:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> <001801d8580c$e4eae200$aec0a600$@rainier66.com> <001f01d8580d$c8c59240$5a50b6c0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004401d85833$29a00940$7ce01bc0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] carbs >>?Billw how does a transfusion have anything to do with eating habits please? >? What the blood stuff is they don't know. Probably some hormone from the hypothalamus, which controls eating, as previously posted? OK guys with the weight control efforts, 200 bucks a pint, guaranteed no dope, no nothing the local minister would disapprove of, such a deal I make you, such a deal! >?They are doing fecal 'transplants' with people for the purpose of curing bowel problems and that works, so if you can't sell your blood, maybe you can keep some hope for selling your shit. Billw Billw, if that is an option, I would really really rather do it that way. I would offer a deep discount on that stuff. The notion brings a whole new meaning to the phrase ?I?ll make a buttload.? The challenge of course would be what to say at a cocktail party when someone asks what I do for a living. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Apr 24 23:45:26 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 19:45:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] carbs In-Reply-To: <004401d85833$29a00940$7ce01bc0$@rainier66.com> References: <90ef77d5-4b7b-44e9-f238-32d9a9a90148@zaiboc.net> <003b01d857ed$3e299d90$ba7cd8b0$@rainier66.com> <001801d8580c$e4eae200$aec0a600$@rainier66.com> <001f01d8580d$c8c59240$5a50b6c0$@rainier66.com> <004401d85833$29a00940$7ce01bc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 24, 2022, 7:31 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Billw, if that is an option, I would really really rather do it that > way. I would offer a deep discount on that stuff. The notion brings a > whole new meaning to the phrase ?I?ll make a buttload.? The challenge of > course would be what to say at a cocktail party when someone asks what I do > for a living. > Interpersonal microbiome broker If asked, "I sell medical grade shit to people who need medical grade shit" > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 16:25:27 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 11:25:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] selling poo Message-ID: Spike, it seems I have inherited your tendency to invent things already invented. bill w https://www.gocomics.com/ripleysbelieveitornot/2022/04/25 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 18:03:37 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:03:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: (Resending message which I had to trim below 160 KB) On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 5:37 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Jason, > > Yes, we've got to at include the ExI list, for Stathis' (and other's?) > sake. He is in the more popular Functionalist > camp, > which you, like so many, appear to agree with. > First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question "What is matter?" Note that physical theories are silent on this question. All physics tells us about matter is its relations, functions, operations, equations, etc. that predict our future experiences of this matter, but no physical theory ever tells us "what matter is". This leads to another thought: perhaps there is nothing more to matter than the relations it embodies. Could matter exist as pure relations without any fundamental relata? If there are two different theories for the relata, but both follow the same relations, is either theory then "non falsifiable" since no test, even in principle, could distinguish between the two theories when all the relations are the same? If relations are all that exist, or if they are all that can be said to exist, then functions representing those relations embody and susume all of physical reality, including all possible physical realities. The most fundamental physical theories suggest the fundamental role of information in physics, with the boldest hypothesizing that ultimately there may be no more to matter than patterns of information. "As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated ?basic building blocks?, but rather appears as a complicated web of relations between the various parts of the whole." -- Fritjof Capra in ?The Tao of Physics? (1975) "Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory." -- John Archibald Wheeler in ?Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam? (1998) "The burgeoning field of computer science has shifted our view of the physical world from that of a collection of interacting material particles to one of a seething network of information." -- Paul Davies in ?The flexi-laws of physics? (2007) "Maybe the relationships are all that exist. Maybe the world is made of math. At first that sounded nuts, but when I thought about it I had to wonder, what exactly is the other option? That the world is made of ?things?? What the hell is a ?thing?? It was one of those concepts that fold under the slightest interrogation. Look closely at any object and you find it?s an amalgamation of particles. But look closely at the particles and you find that they are irreducible representations of the Poincar? symmetry group?whatever that meant. The point is, particles, at bottom, look a lot like math." -- Amanda Gefter in ?Trespassing on Einstein?s Lawn? (2014) Should these ideas prove true, then information theory, computer science, and mathematics are promoted to the fundamental theories of reality, with physical theories being only locally or contingently true relations, they would be those structures/relations capable of supporting the emergence of conscious observers as seen from the inside. The implication of "everything is information" is that manipulations and processing of information (i.e. computation) would then be the most fundamental basic building block, not only of physical reality but also of minds and consciousness. In my view, Functionalism is less a theory of mind, than it is a theory of fundamental reality. > The Molecular Material > camp > just considers "philosophical zombies" to be absurd. > We are in agreement on the absurdity of philosophical zombies. But if you accept that philosophical zombies are impossible, there is a simple proof of functionalism: 1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process can be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine 2. The human brain is a finitely describable process (given DNA which describes both the human body and brain is ~700 MB, and moreover, the Bekenstein bound of quantum mechanics implies a finite information content for any physical object of finite energy and volume) 3. Given (1) and (2) there exists a Turing Machine that perfectly emulates the behavior of any human mind 4. Turing Machines can be built using any material as a physical substrate (vacuum tubes, transistors, electro mechanical relays, gears and levers, billiard balls, water pipes, etc.) the material is unimportant 5. Given the impossibility of philosophical zombies, a Turing machine perfectly emulating a human mind must also be conscious, as otherwise a philosophical zombie could be constructed 6. Given (4) and (5) the material substrate of a mind is irrelevant, the same consciousness must result so long as the abstract function/algorithm/information processing of the emulated mind is preserved. > Especially since they are normally defined in a way that different > qualia may or may not 'superven' on top of identical physical reality. > this is just absurd and is not scientifically falsifiable. I prefer > falsifiable theoretical science to unfalsifiable philosophy. Also, as we > point out in our video: functionalists are no better than dualists, as they > separate qualia from physical reality. > What is "physical reality"? -- What does it include, what does it not include? What is the reality of mathematical objects, of mathematical relations, of mathematical truths? I think that question is potentially a prerequisite to answering questions of the nature of consciousness. There is strong empirical validation of functionalism, in that if you assume the independent reality of the integers and their true relations, you can recover many properties of our observed physical reality from that "first principle". That is, you can derive physical law purely from assuming some very minimal elements of arithmetic. I write more about this here: https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence > Despite how many times I've asked Stathis for a way to falsify his > theory, he has yet to describe how functionalism may be falsified. > It is true that functionalism cannot be falsified. But not being falsifiable is a property of every true theory. > So to me, it is no better than dualism. All he seems to do is qualia, > like redness and greenness, aren't possible, because they, themselves are > substrate on which consciousness is composed. > > And of course I've considered "tetrachromats" which have 4 primary colors, > and shimp that must have a lot more than that. As I always say, I pity the > bi (2 primary colors or color blind people) or even worse the achromatic > (black and white only) people, and can't wait till I (a mere trichromat) > discover what not only it is like for a tetrachromat, but what it is like > for all those 16 primary color shrimp. A brain like that is what I want to > be uploaded to, and how many more physical colors could be discovered after > that???? Even if we discover hundreds, with many thousands of shades of > each, that is still a long way from infinite. > I agree. I think that is the ultimate destiny of humanity (or any intelligent species), to become explorers of consciousness itself. All technological development in progress is aimed at giving us better control over our own sensory and conscious experiences, as I describe here: https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-life/#The_Direction_of_Technology > > And you still seem to be missing something when you say: "in any > conscious state one finds oneself [in], one can only ever know... that one > state." and the way you talk about computational binding like: "less-than > or greater-than comparison operations, equality tests". These kinds of > comparisons are always done between specific things or facts of the > matter. That's what computation abou tobjects is. Your one composite > qualitative experience of the strawberry includes both redness and greenness. > > [image: 3_robots_tiny.png] > While it is true, all of these 3 different systems can function the same. > In that they can all distinguish between and tell you the strawberry is > red, or not. But that is missing the point of the factual qualitative > differences of each of these, and the physical qualities they are using to > represent these differences, or the fact that their knowledge is > intentionally abstracted away from any physical qualities that may be > representing them in a way that requires a dictionary. You can't get > substrate independence, without a dictionary for each different > representation that may or maynot be representing the ones or zeros. > Representing knowledge like the fist two does not require a dictionary, > which is far more efficient than the 3rd, which does required an additional > dictionary. The same way software runs faster directly on physical > hardware, vs running on virtual machines (requires a functional mapping > dictionary to different functioning hardware). > I think your interpretation of functionalism may be of a restricted from, in that you may only being looking at only the output of the function, e.g., "Does this function output 'I see red?'" But that is not how I view functionalism. I think the implementation is important, and to get the qualia of a human seeing a red strawberry requires a function that is isomorphic to the same functions employed by the human retina, visual cortex, and arguably other brain regions. If a robot's visual functions are implemented in a manner that replicates the same functions and information processing as goes on in the human brain, the robot can't help but feel the same. Otherwise would be to invite zombies, or perhaps even worse: dancing/fading qualia scenarios. > > Which brings me to the 3rd strongest form of effing the ineffable, which > was portrayed in the movie avatar > with Neural ponytails. These could function like the Corpus collosum which > can computationally bind knowledge represented in the left hemisphere with > knowledge represented in the right. With a neural ponytail like that, you > would experience all of the experience, not just half. If the first two > systems in the above image (one's redness is like your greenness) they > would directly experience this difference, just the same as if your left > field of vision was looking through red/green inverted glasses. It is > called "4. the strongest form" of effing the ineffable, because what you > directly apprehend is infallible or cannot be doubted the same way "I > think, therefore I am" cannot be doubted. > > I do think future technologies such as being able to directly integrate/stimulate/measure/alter/and link neurons within our brains will enable a renaissance in our understanding of consciousness, as it will become a science each person can perform experiments with and get immediate results in terms of altered experiences. And while brain linking could potentially give a shared quale of "red" between two minds, once split again can the two formerly linked minds trust their memories of what red was like when they were linked? William James pointed out that we can't even know we were conscious 5 minutes ago. How then can we know the red we saw 5 minutes ago when linked is the same red we remember now? It might be possible, but there I think there are compelling arguments that cast doubt as well. In any event, I look forward to the future where minds can be linked as in Avatar. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3_robots_tiny.png Type: image/png Size: 26214 bytes Desc: not available URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 18:43:10 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:43:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jason, Yes, Stathis and I have gone over these same arguments, in a gazillion different ways, for years, still unable to convince the other. I agree with most everything you say, but it is all entirely missing the point. I think you get to the core of the issue with your: "First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question 'What is matter?'" The issue is with one of these assumptions: "1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process can be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine" The isus is that any description of redness (our claim that something is redness) tells you nothing of the nature of redness, without a dictionary pointing to an example of redness. This is true for the same reason you can't communicate to a blind person what redness is like, no matter how many words you use. Stathis always makes this same claim: "It is true that functionalism cannot be falsified. But not being falsifiable is a property of every true theory." no matter how many times I point out that if that is true, no matter what you say redness is, it can't be that, either, because you can use the same zombie or neural substitution argument and claim it can't be that either. All you prove is that qualia aren't possible. And since we know, absolutely, It is a physical fact that I can experience redness, this just proves your assumptions (about the nature of matter) are incorrect. To say nothing about all the other so-called 'hard problems' that emerge with that set of assumptions. We can abstractly describe and predict how matter "whatever it is" will behave. But when it comes to intrinsic colorness qualities or qualia, like redness and greenness, you've got to point to some physical example of something that has that redness quality. And without that, there is no possible way to define the word "redness", let alone experience redness. On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:04 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > (Resending message which I had to trim below 160 KB) > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 5:37 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Jason, >> >> Yes, we've got to at include the ExI list, for Stathis' (and other's?) >> sake. He is in the more popular Functionalist >> camp, >> which you, like so many, appear to agree with. >> > > First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question "What > is matter?" > > Note that physical theories are silent on this question. All physics tells > us about matter is its relations, functions, operations, equations, etc. > that predict our future experiences of this matter, but no physical theory > ever tells us "what matter is". > > This leads to another thought: perhaps there is nothing more to matter > than the relations it embodies. Could matter exist as pure relations > without any fundamental relata? If there are two different theories for the > relata, but both follow the same relations, is either theory then "non > falsifiable" since no test, even in principle, could distinguish between > the two theories when all the relations are the same? > > If relations are all that exist, or if they are all that can be said to > exist, then functions representing those relations embody and susume all of > physical reality, including all possible physical realities. The most > fundamental physical theories suggest the fundamental role of information > in physics, with the boldest hypothesizing that ultimately there may be no > more to matter than patterns of information. > > "As we penetrate into matter, nature does not show us any isolated ?basic > building blocks?, but rather appears as a complicated web of relations > between the various parts of the whole." > -- Fritjof Capra in ?The Tao of Physics? (1975) > > "Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything is Information. The > more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to > comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental > roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory." > -- John Archibald Wheeler in ?Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam? (1998) > > "The burgeoning field of computer science has shifted our view of the > physical world from that of a collection of interacting material particles > to one of a seething network of information." > -- Paul Davies in ?The flexi-laws of physics? (2007) > > "Maybe the relationships are all that exist. Maybe the world is made of > math. At first that sounded nuts, but when I thought about it I had to > wonder, what exactly is the other option? That the world is made of > ?things?? What the hell is a ?thing?? It was one of those concepts that > fold under the slightest interrogation. Look closely at any object and you > find it?s an amalgamation of particles. But look closely at the particles > and you find that they are irreducible representations of the Poincar? > symmetry group?whatever that meant. The point is, particles, at bottom, > look a lot like math." > -- Amanda Gefter in ?Trespassing on Einstein?s Lawn? (2014) > > > Should these ideas prove true, then information theory, computer science, > and mathematics are promoted to the fundamental theories of reality, with > physical theories being only locally or contingently true relations, they > would be those structures/relations capable of supporting the emergence of > conscious observers as seen from the inside. > > The implication of "everything is information" is that manipulations and > processing of information (i.e. computation) would then be the most > fundamental basic building block, not only of physical reality but also of > minds and consciousness. > > In my view, Functionalism is less a theory of mind, than it is a theory of > fundamental reality. > > > >> The Molecular Material >> camp >> just considers "philosophical zombies" to be absurd. >> > > We are in agreement on the absurdity of philosophical zombies. > > But if you accept that philosophical zombies are impossible, there is a > simple proof of functionalism: > 1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process can be > perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine > 2. The human brain is a finitely describable process (given DNA which > describes both the human body and brain is ~700 MB, and moreover, the > Bekenstein bound of quantum mechanics implies a finite information content > for any physical object of finite energy and volume) > 3. Given (1) and (2) there exists a Turing Machine that perfectly emulates > the behavior of any human mind > 4. Turing Machines can be built using any material as a physical substrate > (vacuum tubes, transistors, electro mechanical relays, gears and levers, > billiard balls, water pipes, etc.) the material is unimportant > 5. Given the impossibility of philosophical zombies, a Turing machine > perfectly emulating a human mind must also be conscious, as otherwise a > philosophical zombie could be constructed > 6. Given (4) and (5) the material substrate of a mind is irrelevant, the > same consciousness must result so long as the abstract > function/algorithm/information processing of the emulated mind is preserved. > > >> Especially since they are normally defined in a way that different >> qualia may or may not 'superven' on top of identical physical reality. >> this is just absurd and is not scientifically falsifiable. I prefer >> falsifiable theoretical science to unfalsifiable philosophy. Also, as >> we point out in our video: functionalists are no better than dualists, as >> they separate qualia from physical reality. >> > > What is "physical reality"? -- What does it include, what does it not > include? What is the reality of mathematical objects, of mathematical > relations, of mathematical truths? > I think that question is potentially a prerequisite to answering questions > of the nature of consciousness. > > There is strong empirical validation of functionalism, in that if you > assume the independent reality of the integers and their true relations, > you can recover many properties of our observed physical reality from that > "first principle". That is, you can derive physical law purely from > assuming some very minimal elements of arithmetic. I write more about this > here: > https://alwaysasking.com/why-does-anything-exist/#Confirming_Evidence > > >> Despite how many times I've asked Stathis for a way to falsify his >> theory, he has yet to describe how functionalism may be falsified. >> > > It is true that functionalism cannot be falsified. But not being > falsifiable is a property of every true theory. > > >> So to me, it is no better than dualism. All he seems to do is qualia, >> like redness and greenness, aren't possible, because they, themselves are >> substrate on which consciousness is composed. >> >> And of course I've considered "tetrachromats" which have 4 primary >> colors, and shimp that must have a lot more than that. As I always say, I >> pity the bi (2 primary colors or color blind people) or even worse the >> achromatic (black and white only) people, and can't wait till I (a mere >> trichromat) discover what not only it is like for a tetrachromat, but what >> it is like for all those 16 primary color shrimp. A brain like that is >> what I want to be uploaded to, and how many more physical colors could be >> discovered after that???? Even if we discover hundreds, with many >> thousands of shades of each, that is still a long way from infinite. >> > > I agree. I think that is the ultimate destiny of humanity (or any > intelligent species), to become explorers of consciousness itself. All > technological development in progress is aimed at giving us better control > over our own sensory and conscious experiences, as I describe here: > https://alwaysasking.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-life/#The_Direction_of_Technology > > > >> >> And you still seem to be missing something when you say: "in any >> conscious state one finds oneself [in], one can only ever know... that one >> state." and the way you talk about computational binding like: "less-than >> or greater-than comparison operations, equality tests". These kinds of >> comparisons are always done between specific things or facts of the >> matter. That's what computation abou tobjects is. Your one composite >> qualitative experience of the strawberry includes both redness and greenness. >> >> [image: 3_robots_tiny.png] >> While it is true, all of these 3 different systems can function the >> same. In that they can all distinguish between and tell you the strawberry >> is red, or not. But that is missing the point of the factual qualitative >> differences of each of these, and the physical qualities they are using to >> represent these differences, or the fact that their knowledge is >> intentionally abstracted away from any physical qualities that may be >> representing them in a way that requires a dictionary. You can't get >> substrate independence, without a dictionary for each different >> representation that may or maynot be representing the ones or zeros. >> Representing knowledge like the fist two does not require a dictionary, >> which is far more efficient than the 3rd, which does required an additional >> dictionary. The same way software runs faster directly on physical >> hardware, vs running on virtual machines (requires a functional mapping >> dictionary to different functioning hardware). >> > > I think your interpretation of functionalism may be of a restricted from, > in that you may only being looking at only the output of the function, > e.g., "Does this function output 'I see red?'" > But that is not how I view functionalism. I think the implementation is > important, and to get the qualia of a human seeing a red strawberry > requires a function that is isomorphic to the same functions employed by > the human retina, visual cortex, and arguably other brain regions. If a > robot's visual functions are implemented in a manner that replicates the > same functions and information processing as goes on in the human brain, > the robot can't help but feel the same. Otherwise would be to invite > zombies, or perhaps even worse: dancing/fading qualia scenarios. > > >> >> Which brings me to the 3rd strongest form of effing the ineffable, which >> was portrayed in the movie avatar >> with Neural ponytails. These could function like the Corpus collosum which >> can computationally bind knowledge represented in the left hemisphere with >> knowledge represented in the right. With a neural ponytail like that, you >> would experience all of the experience, not just half. If the first two >> systems in the above image (one's redness is like your greenness) they >> would directly experience this difference, just the same as if your left >> field of vision was looking through red/green inverted glasses. It is >> called "4. the strongest form" of effing the ineffable, because what you >> directly apprehend is infallible or cannot be doubted the same way "I >> think, therefore I am" cannot be doubted. >> >> > I do think future technologies such as being able to directly > integrate/stimulate/measure/alter/and link neurons within our brains will > enable a renaissance in our understanding of consciousness, as it will > become a science each person can perform experiments with and get immediate > results in terms of altered experiences. And while brain linking could > potentially give a shared quale of "red" between two minds, once split > again can the two formerly linked minds trust their memories of what red > was like when they were linked? William James pointed out that we can't > even know we were conscious 5 minutes ago. How then can we know the red we > saw 5 minutes ago when linked is the same red we remember now? It might be > possible, but there I think there are compelling arguments that cast doubt > as well. In any event, I look forward to the future where minds can be > linked as in Avatar. > > Jason > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 3_robots_tiny.png Type: image/png Size: 26214 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Apr 25 19:39:24 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 12:39:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] selling poo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006301d858dc$2b674ff0$8235efd0$@rainier66.com> From: William Flynn Wallace Subject: selling poo >?Spike, it seems I have inherited your tendency to invent things already invented. bill w https://www.gocomics.com/ripleysbelieveitornot/2022/04/25 Billw, if the bastards would just stop inventing things, I could make a buttload as an inventor. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 20:17:58 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:17:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Brent, I appreciate your quick response and for getting to the heart of the issue. My replies are in-line below: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:43 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Jason, > Yes, Stathis and I have gone over these same arguments, in a gazillion > different ways, for years, still unable to convince the other. I agree > with most everything you say, but it is all entirely missing the point. > > I think you get to the core of the issue with your: > "First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question > 'What is matter?'" > > I am curious what your intuition says on this? Do you think that there are intrinsic properties of matter (beyond its third-person observable behavior) which is somehow necessary for consciousness or quale such as red? > The issue is with one of these assumptions: > "1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process can > be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine" > > The isus is that any description of redness (our claim that something is > redness) tells you nothing of the nature of redness, without a dictionary > pointing to an example of redness. > Yes this is the "symbol grounding problem". All communication, of anything (even so-called objective properties like mass, distance, time durations, etc.) require ostensive (pointing to) definitions. Since no two minds can ever share that common reference frame, and point out to the same quale, ostensive definitions of these quale, and hence meaningful communication concerning them, is impossible (since there can never be a verifiable common foundation). > This is true for the same reason you can't communicate to a blind person > what redness is like, no matter how many words you use. > > Stathis always makes this same claim: > > "It is true that functionalism cannot be falsified. But not being > falsifiable is a property of every true theory." > > no matter how many times I point out that if that is true, no matter what > you say redness is, it can't be that, either, because you can use the same > zombie or neural substitution argument and claim it can't be that either. > I don't follow this point, could you elaborate? > All you prove is that qualia aren't possible. > I do not follow how this conclusions was reached. > And since we know, absolutely, It is a physical fact that I can > experience redness, > What does "physical" add to the above sentence? To me it seems redundant and only adds to the confusion (as we still haven't settled what is meant by physics or matter). > this just proves your assumptions (about the nature of matter) are > incorrect. > I don't see why you think the assumption of functionalism leads to a denial of qualia/consciousness. > To say nothing about all the other so-called 'hard problems' that emerge > with that set of assumptions. > > We can abstractly describe and predict how matter "whatever it is" will > behave. But when it comes to intrinsic colorness qualities or qualia, like > redness and greenness, you've got to point to some physical example of > something that has that redness quality. And without that, there is no > possible way to define the word "redness", let alone experience redness. > A shared physical realm is necessary to ostensively define properties like mass, distance, and time durations. Two beings, kept apart in two different universes but allowed to communicate bit strings back and forth could never reach any agreement on how long a "meter" is. This is the situation we are in with qualia. Two minds are in a sense, like two partially isolated simulated universes, with an inability to ever share the meaning of what they mean when they refer to their red experiences, short of an Avatar-like neural link to temporarily bridge their two independent and isolated mental realities. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Mon Apr 25 22:19:28 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 15:19:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight Message-ID: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> OK so Musk buys Twitter. I don't know if it is true, but it is reported that many Twitter employees walked away and the others are trying to unionize. This is remarkable on both counts, the second one first. Unionize a bunch of computer science majors. OK then. Many of us who have ever worked with anyone who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in anything hard to get, anything which required the calculus series up thru and including differential equations, please: can you even imagine them forming a successful union? The egos included in that group, heh, imagine plenty of them saying something like: Sure I will join your lame-o union, as long as you make me president for life with unlimited powers (etc.) Those kind of people just don't unionize well. First part: employees walked away. They just won't have Mr. Musk owning that company, after what he plainly said (and he is the kind of guy who says what he means, then does what he says.) He said he would do two things: make the filtering algorithm public and ramp up efforts to stop bots. OK then, second part (of the first part) first: did they walk away because Elon wants them to amp up the anti-bot-otics? I think not. So. (first part of the first part). did they walk away because they didn't like Elon making the filters public? Think about that a minute please. Did they object to their filters. being. public? My ExI friends, I think that was it. The walk-aways didn't want that public. They can't really form a union to pressure the company, because STEM guys just don't swing that way, the whole union thing is far too hard-hat-and-lunch-pail for their level of sophistication, and I can't imagine why they (or anyone) would object to better and more robust anti-bot-otics, so. I can't think of anything else. they didn't want their filters to be public. Implications please? Thoughts? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 22:23:13 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 16:23:13 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jason, On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:18 PM Jason Resch wrote: > Hi Brent, > > I appreciate your quick response and for getting to the heart of the > issue. My replies are in-line below: > Likewise. On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:43 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > >> >> Hi Jason, >> Yes, Stathis and I have gone over these same arguments, in a gazillion >> different ways, for years, still unable to convince the other. I agree >> with most everything you say, but it is all entirely missing the point. >> >> I think you get to the core of the issue with your: >> "First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question >> 'What is matter?'" >> >> I am curious what your intuition says on this? Do you think that there > are intrinsic properties of matter (beyond its third-person observable > behavior) which is somehow necessary for consciousness or quale such as red? > There seems to be a physical strawberry out there, which is red. Our intuition about the quality of that physical. thing is right, just for the wrong stuff. It is your physical knowledge of the strawberry that has the redness quality. > The issue is with one of these assumptions: > >> "1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process can >> be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine" >> >> The isus is that any description of redness (our claim that something is >> redness) tells you nothing of the nature of redness, without a dictionary >> pointing to an example of redness. >> > > Yes this is the "symbol grounding problem". All communication, of anything > (even so-called objective properties like mass, distance, time durations, > etc.) require ostensive (pointing to) definitions. Since no two minds can > ever share that common reference frame, and point out to the same quale, > ostensive definitions of these quale, and hence meaningful communication > concerning them, is impossible (since there can never be a verifiable > common foundation). > It's only a "problem" for functionalists. For Materialists it is just a physical fact that something in the brain has that quality, waiting for us to discover it. Say we discover it is glutamate, and that no matter how hard a functionalist tries, they can't reproduce a redness experience, without glutamate, as Materialism predicts. What does that say about your non falsifiable proof? > > >> This is true for the same reason you can't communicate to a blind person >> what redness is like, no matter how many words you use. >> >> Stathis always makes this same claim: >> >> "It is true that functionalism cannot be falsified. But not being >> falsifiable is a property of every true theory." >> >> no matter how many times I point out that if that is true, no matter what >> you say redness is, it can't be that, either, because you can use the same >> zombie or neural substitution argument and claim it can't be that either. >> > > I don't follow this point, could you elaborate? > > >> All you prove is that qualia aren't possible. >> > > I do not follow how this conclusions was reached. > Yea, I possibly just skipped past a few complex years of discussion with Stathis. Basically, no matter what you say redness is (even if it results from some function), you can "prove" with the neural substitution argument that it can't be that, either. Your zombie arguments seem the same, to me. It doesn't prove that redness must be "functional" it proves there can be no redness of any kind. Let me know your zombie argument doesn't have the same problem. Again, it's all about the assumptions you make. Everyone assumes the simulation will succeed. Materialists simply predict it will fail, and that whatever it is that has the redness quality, when you get to the fist pixel of redness, nothing but glutamate will enable you to produce an experience with a redness quality. The substitution will fail. And since we know, absolutely, It is a physical fact that I can > experience redness, > > What does "physical" add to the above sentence? To me it seems redundant > and only adds to the confusion (as we still haven't settled what is meant > by physics or matter). > Yea 'physical' is probably redundant. > > >> this just proves your assumptions (about the nature of matter) are >> incorrect. >> > > I don't see why you think the assumption of functionalism leads to a > denial of qualia/consciousness. > Again, it is the neural substitution argument, which makes people think things like redness are functional. But the neural substitution problems proves nothing, including some function, can have a redness quality. And my understanding is the main reason people think they are forced to accept functionalism (despite all the 'hard' problems that go along with it) is because of neural substitution and zombie arguments. > > >> To say nothing about all the other so-called 'hard problems' that >> emerge with that set of assumptions. >> >> We can abstractly describe and predict how matter "whatever it is" will >> behave. But when it comes to intrinsic colorness qualities or qualia, like >> redness and greenness, you've got to point to some physical example of >> something that has that redness quality. And without that, there is no >> possible way to define the word "redness", let alone experience redness. >> > > A shared physical realm is necessary to ostensively define properties like > mass, distance, and time durations. Two beings, kept apart in two different > universes but allowed to communicate bit strings back and forth could never > reach any agreement on how long a "meter" is. > > This is the situation we are in with qualia. Two minds are in a sense, > like two partially isolated simulated universes, with an inability to ever > share the meaning of what they mean when they refer to their red > experiences, short of an Avatar-like neural link to temporarily bridge > their two independent and isolated mental realities. > I thought we already went over this. Brain Hemispheres and conjoined twins prove what you think cannot be done can be done. If a brain hemisphere isn't an island, why would a brain be so constrained. it's kind of like saying we will never fly, while watching birds fly. It is only a matter of time before we can do all of the following engineereing in an artificial way. 1. weak form of effing the ineffable. 2. Stronger form of effing the ineffable. 4. Strongest form of effing the ineffable. For a more detailed description of these, see this quora answer . Take the 16th color of the knowledge of that shrimp, which no human has ever experienced, which you mentioned. How are you going to reproduce that in your brain, so you can both know what it is like and then can use it to represent an additional wavelength of sensed light? You just need to take whatever it is, and computationally bind it into your consciousness. Nothing hard about that. Claiming that could be duplicated simply by programming some function called 16th colorness quality doesn't even pass the laugh test does it? We may not know what matter is, but we know, absolutely, that something has a redness quality. We just don't yet know what. That's the only problem. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 23:17:11 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:17:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 at 23:22, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > OK so Musk buys Twitter. I don?t know if it is true, but it is reported that many Twitter employees walked away and the others are trying to unionize. > > > My ExI friends, I think that was it. The walk-aways didn?t want that public. They can?t really form a union to pressure the company, because STEM guys just don?t swing that way, the whole union thing is far too hard-hat-and-lunch-pail for their level of sophistication, and I can?t imagine why they (or anyone) would object to better and more robust anti-bot-otics, so? I can?t think of anything else? they didn?t want their filters to be public. > > Implications please? Thoughts? > spike > _______________________________________________ It's too soon to speculate. The deal was only agreed a few hours ago. I doubt that employees have left yet. Software changes have been frozen temporarily. Musk plans to take the company private, at which time the Twitter board will resign. Many employees have share compensation schemes. They will want to find out what is going to happen to them. I expect many discussions and 'What ifs' are going on, with the future so cloudy. But most employees will be in a wait and see mode. BillK From col.hales at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 23:38:32 2022 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:38:32 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 6:19 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Hi Brent, > > I appreciate your quick response and for getting to the heart of the > issue. My replies are in-line below: > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:43 PM Brent Allsop > wrote: > >> >> Hi Jason, >> Yes, Stathis and I have gone over these same arguments, in a gazillion >> different ways, for years, still unable to convince the other. I agree >> with most everything you say, but it is all entirely missing the point. >> >> I think you get to the core of the issue with your: >> "First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question >> 'What is matter?'" >> >> > I am curious what your intuition says on this? Do you think that there are > intrinsic properties of matter (beyond its third-person observable > behavior) which is somehow necessary for consciousness or quale such as red? > > >> The issue is with one of these assumptions: >> "1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process can >> be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine" >> >> The isus is that any description of redness (our claim that something is >> redness) tells you nothing of the nature of redness, without a dictionary >> pointing to an example of redness. >> > > Yes this is the "symbol grounding problem". All communication, of anything > (even so-called objective properties like mass, distance, time durations, > etc.) require ostensive (pointing to) definitions. Since no two minds can > ever share that common reference frame, and point out to the same quale, > ostensive definitions of these quale, and hence meaningful communication > concerning them, is impossible (since there can never be a verifiable > common foundation). > ============================ Ok. Can I suggest rethinking things along these lines: Kitchener, P.D., and Hales, C.G. (2022). What Neuroscientists Think, and Don?t Think, About Consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 16. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612 In terms of 'material' or 'matter' or 'physical' in our biosphere (all of it rocks to humans), fundamental physics (the standard model) says it is, effectively, entirely electromagnetic fields from the atomic level up. To quote the article: *"The standard model of particle physics is about twice the age ofthe modern ?correlates-of ? form of the science of consciousness(Cottingham and Greenwood, 2007; Rich, 2010). In it, physicshas already determined what our biosphere and everythingin it is made of. It is effectively entirely electromagnetism(electromagnetic fields). This idea applies to anything made ofatoms from the table of the elements at a spatiotemporal scaleabove that of the atomic particles comprising atoms (electronsand nuclei). At the atomic level and above, we and our hostenvironment are defined by three things: space, an EM fieldsystem impressed on space (due to subatomic charge and spincontent tightly bound up with the subatomic mass), and agravitational field impressed on space (due to sub-atomic mass,functionally inert in context because it is more than 16 ordersof magnitude weaker in force transmission than EM). In roughterms, at the intra-atomic scale, EM fields occupy the spaceoccupied by an atom to the extent of at least 14,999 parts in15,000. The remaining ?1 part? is the interior of electrons andnuclei. When you add in the space between atoms, the proportionof overall spatial occupancy by EM fields is far higher. Wehumans are nearly entirely EM field objects. In our context ofthe brain, when we use the words ?material? or ?physical,? thesewords (abstractions) refer to EM phenomena."* Then, in terms of implications ..... *"The EM field system impressed on space by brain tissue is* *therefore not a side effect of cells made of something else. Theentire tissue is a single, unitary EM field system impressed onspace with atomic-level resolution. For example, there is nospecial substance that is a neuron. A neuron is a collectionof EM fields ?behaving neuron-ly? to an observer made ofEM fields. ?Chemical? or ?chemical reaction,? or ?chemicalpathway? is a reference toEM field activity. ?Mechanical? (such assound propagation/transduction/phonons, or cell deformation)is also an EM phenomenon. ?Electro-chemical? is also selectingphenomena entirely comprised of EM. ?Quantum mechanics? isnot a substance. It is a set of (wave-equation-based) quantizingconstraints on EM field expression (such as that determiningthe electron orbitals in an atom). ?Chemical potential? is apopulation statistic depicting average EM field properties forparticular collections of atoms in relation to each other. ?Actionpotentials? are a system of EM field dynamics propagatingslowly through space longitudinally following neuronal cellmembrane (also an EM field construct). Synapse activity(?electrical? and ?chemical?) is an EM field phenomenon. Thefamiliar electrophysiological measurements made in brain tissuedetect ?total field? in the brain that is a result of the vector fieldsuperposition of myriad individual atomic/molecular fieldsources that superpose to dominate (spatially, temporally, andin intensity) the underlying atomic/molecular EM field ?noise?found at any point in space. ?Electrical current? is a transitof an EM field system through space. Ultraweak biophotonand thermal (heat) radiation is also an EM field phenomenonoriginating in the same system of atomic sources. Diffusionis a collection of randomly colliding atomic EM field systemsbouncing off each other due to EM field-based repulsion. To?touch something? with your finger is to engage in an interactionbetween the EM field system of a finger surface and the EM fieldof the touched entity."* >From the point of view of accounting for a brain (1st- or 3rd- person), there is only 1 substrate (substrate independence is a myth): it is EM fields. If you talk about any XYZ-ism at all, then the brain actually implements it with EM fields. A computer is also 100% EM fields. The difference is in how the EM is organized. There is no necessary relationship between the field system organization of a computer and its function. The chip designers spend a lot of time eliminating field cross-talk effects (treated as functional errors), confining EM fields to individual devices. In the brain, nature has created a unique signature in its EM field expression and the bulk EM field has a functional role. Field-effect cross talk is so pronounced, that it is possible to regard the brain as a single, unitary 100% solid EM field object so spatially large and strong that it spills out into the surrounding tissue (EEG/MEG see it). In the end I predict that it will be found that the brain will not be Turing-computable. But to explore that you have to stop using general-purpose computers alone to explore artificial brains. Something that is not in the AI play-book .... and is a prospect that never gets countenanced in lists like these, where the great cargo cult of 'to do AGI is to use a general-purpose-computer' reigns without question. cheers, Colin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 23:51:49 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:51:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 5:23 PM Brent Allsop wrote: > > Hi Jason, > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:18 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> Hi Brent, >> >> I appreciate your quick response and for getting to the heart of the >> issue. My replies are in-line below: >> > Likewise. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:43 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Jason, >>> Yes, Stathis and I have gone over these same arguments, in a gazillion >>> different ways, for years, still unable to convince the other. I agree >>> with most everything you say, but it is all entirely missing the point. >>> >>> I think you get to the core of the issue with your: >>> "First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question >>> 'What is matter?'" >>> >>> I am curious what your intuition says on this? Do you think that there >> are intrinsic properties of matter (beyond its third-person observable >> behavior) which is somehow necessary for consciousness or quale such as red? >> > > There seems to be a physical strawberry out there, which is red. Our > intuition about the quality of that physical. thing is right, just for the > wrong stuff. It is your physical knowledge of the strawberry that has the > redness quality. > What do you think is the embodiment of this physical knowledge? I don't think it is in the strawberry, for you can have a dream about a red strawberry without there being any strawberry. Or a TV can project photons to your retina without there being a strawberry, or a neurosurgeon can apply electrical stimulation to parts of your brain to make you see a red strawberry without there being one. So at what point and where does this physical knowledge come into play? Are you considering that it exists in chemicals within the brain itself? > > >> The issue is with one of these assumptions: >> >>> "1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process >>> can be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine >>> " >>> >>> The isus is that any description of redness (our claim that something is >>> redness) tells you nothing of the nature of redness, without a dictionary >>> pointing to an example of redness. >>> >> >> Yes this is the "symbol grounding problem". All communication, of >> anything (even so-called objective properties like mass, distance, time >> durations, etc.) require ostensive (pointing to) definitions. Since no two >> minds can ever share that common reference frame, and point out to the same >> quale, ostensive definitions of these quale, and hence meaningful >> communication concerning them, is impossible (since there can never be a >> verifiable common foundation). >> > > It's only a "problem" for functionalists. For Materialists it is just a > physical fact that something in the brain has that quality, waiting for us > to discover it. > Say we discover it is glutamate, and that no matter how hard a > functionalist tries, they can't reproduce a redness experience, without > glutamate, as Materialism predicts. > What does that say about your non falsifiable proof? > A functionally equivalent computation of a brain's neural network (when the simulating computer does not contain glutamate) will nonetheless result in that person reporting that they see red, since their functions were replicated, all outwardly observable behaviors will, by definition, be identical, so how can it ever be discovered that the redness quality is no longer there? Even if it were absent, and they could consciously notice this (though even this I think is getting into dubious inconsistency territories) they could exhibit no outward signs that they were experiencing things any differently. You need to be an epiphenominalist to even accept the plausibility of this scenario (where one does not see red, but reports that they do and that nothing has changed). > > >> >> >>> This is true for the same reason you can't communicate to a blind person >>> what redness is like, no matter how many words you use. >>> >>> Stathis always makes this same claim: >>> >>> "It is true that functionalism cannot be falsified. But not being >>> falsifiable is a property of every true theory." >>> >>> no matter how many times I point out that if that is true, no matter >>> what you say redness is, it can't be that, either, because you can use the >>> same zombie or neural substitution argument and claim it can't be that >>> either. >>> >> >> I don't follow this point, could you elaborate? >> >> >>> All you prove is that qualia aren't possible. >>> >> >> I do not follow how this conclusions was reached. >> > > Yea, I possibly just skipped past a few complex years of discussion with > Stathis. Basically, no matter what you say redness is (even if it results > from some function), you can "prove" with the neural substitution argument > > that it can't be that, either. > I am still not seeing how you are arriving at this conclusion. A neural substitution preserves the abstract functional relations and properties, so substituting one type of neuron for another doesn't change the function that is implemented. > Your zombie arguments seem the same, to me. It doesn't prove that redness > must be "functional" it proves there can be no redness of any kind. Let me > know your zombie argument doesn't have the same problem. > A functionalist would say redness exists as a property inherent to particular ways of processing information, as implemented by certain algorithms or functions. How does this prove there can be no redness of any kind? I think there is something one, or both of us, may be missing here as we seem to be talking past each other on this point without any communication or understanding occurring. > > Again, it's all about the assumptions you make. Everyone assumes the > simulation will succeed. Materialists simply predict it will fail, and > that whatever it is that has the redness quality, when you get to the fist > pixel of redness, nothing but glutamate will enable you to produce an > experience with a redness quality. The substitution will fail. > How do you envision this failure manifesting? Do you agree with Searle when he says: ?as the silicon is progressively implanted into your dwindling brain, you find that the area of your conscious experience is shrinking, but that this shows no effect on your external behavior. You find, to your total amazement, that you are indeed losing control of your external behavior. You find, for example, that when the doctors test your vision, you hear them say, "We are holding up a red object in front of you; please tell us what you see." You want to cry out, "I can't see anything. I'm going totally blind." But you hear your voice saying in a way that is completely out of your control, "I see a red object in front of me."? Or something like that? > > And since we know, absolutely, It is a physical fact that I can >> experience redness, >> >> What does "physical" add to the above sentence? To me it seems redundant >> and only adds to the confusion (as we still haven't settled what is meant >> by physics or matter). >> > > Yea 'physical' is probably redundant. > >> >> >>> this just proves your assumptions (about the nature of matter) are >>> incorrect. >>> >> >> I don't see why you think the assumption of functionalism leads to a >> denial of qualia/consciousness. >> > Again, it is the neural substitution argument, which makes people think > things like redness are functional. But the neural substitution problems > proves nothing, including some function, can have a redness quality. > And my understanding is the main reason people think they are forced to > accept functionalism (despite all the 'hard' problems that go along with > it) is because of neural substitution and zombie arguments. > Did you see an error in my 6 step proof that if zombies are impossible, functional equivalence must preserve consciousness? If so it wasn't clear to me which point or assumption you believe the error exists in. What do you see as the "hard problems" of functionalism? > >> >>> To say nothing about all the other so-called 'hard problems' that >>> emerge with that set of assumptions. >>> >>> We can abstractly describe and predict how matter "whatever it is" will >>> behave. But when it comes to intrinsic colorness qualities or qualia, like >>> redness and greenness, you've got to point to some physical example of >>> something that has that redness quality. And without that, there is no >>> possible way to define the word "redness", let alone experience redness. >>> >> >> A shared physical realm is necessary to ostensively define properties >> like mass, distance, and time durations. Two beings, kept apart in two >> different universes but allowed to communicate bit strings back and forth >> could never reach any agreement on how long a "meter" is. >> >> This is the situation we are in with qualia. Two minds are in a sense, >> like two partially isolated simulated universes, with an inability to ever >> share the meaning of what they mean when they refer to their red >> experiences, short of an Avatar-like neural link to temporarily bridge >> their two independent and isolated mental realities. >> > > I thought we already went over this. Brain Hemispheres and conjoined > twins > > prove what you think cannot be done can be done. > If a brain hemisphere isn't an island, why would a brain be so > constrained. it's kind of like saying we will never fly, while watching > birds fly. It is only a matter of time before we can do all of the > following engineereing in an artificial way. > > 1. weak form of effing the ineffable. > 2. Stronger form of effing the ineffable. > 4. Strongest form of effing the ineffable. > > For a more detailed description of these, see this quora answer > > . > I am not sure what you think I am saying cannot be done. I believe minds can be merged with sufficient technology. My only point is that after a separation, one can no longer be certain that their memories of qualia while joined have not somehow changed after the split. For what it's worth, we can't be certain the red we experience today wasn't experienced as green yesterday. Although I am of the opinion that for such a change to occur would require an in-principal third-person detectable reorganization of the processing done by someone's brain between those two days. > > Take the 16th color of the knowledge of that shrimp, which no human has > ever experienced, which you mentioned. > How are you going to reproduce that in your brain, so you can both know > what it is like > It seems mammalian brains are sufficiently flexible to learn to interpret and process new sensory input after a few weeks of time to adjust to the new signal, as found in this experiment: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090916133521.htm > and then can use it to represent an additional wavelength of sensed light? > You just need to take whatever it is, and computationally bind it into > your consciousness. Nothing hard about that. > Claiming that could be duplicated simply by programming some function > called 16th colorness quality doesn't even pass the laugh test does it? > When one is talking about functions that within our own brains, involve billions of neurons and hundreds of trillions of synapses, it is hard to say what the outcome may be. Though I doubt that such a function implementing color vision could be implemented simply. This was one of my motivations for writing the artificial life software, to try to ascertain what are the bare minimum computations/processes necessary for the barest levels of sentience. Though these bots have just 16 artificial neurons, they learn to: - Spin Searching For Food - Stop to Eat Food and pass over Poison - Follow Food on the Move - Travel at high speed in a straight line - Slow down when food encountered - Travel with antenna to side stopping to eat - Flinch antenna on contact with poison - Slightly turn to sweep larger area - Turning and spreading out antenna while eating - Try to speed through poison - Stay still hiding from poison - Move out of the way when poison is near - Flinch, wiggle, and run on contact with poison You can observe all these behaviors evolve in real time over just 20 some minutes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBsqlWQTts&list=PLq_mdJjNRPT11IF4NFyLcIWJ1C0Z3hTAX&index=1 > > We may not know what matter is, but we know, absolutely, that something > has a redness quality. > Indeed. I agree. I was just reading this article today which makes a similar point: https://archive.ph/RVY0F ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html ) > We just don't yet know what. That's the only problem. > > I like to think of it like trying to figure out how a word processor works, when we only have two views to it: what we see on the screen, with the buttons, and cursor, and menus, and the compute hardware itself, with its billions of transistors tossing electrons back and forth. From either vantage point, it is an utter and incomprehensible mystery how one view has anything to do with the other view. It's only in the intermediate view, the software modules, the libraries, the functional description, the high level programming language specifying everything, that our minds have any hope of understanding things. Today we see the conscious experience, and we see the neurons under a microscope. What we're missing is the intermediate high-level descriptions of the types of processing done by higher level collections of neurons, and brain regions, etc. I think these steps are what is necessary if we are to make any headway into understanding what red is. I tend to doubt lower level neurotransmitters have any important role, for though red seems simple, we have no reason to assume it must be simple. Nore more than we should assume the spell-checker is simple, because it is represented with a single button in the word processor UI. "Red the colour of blood the symbol of life Red the colour of danger the symbol of death Red the colour of roses the symbol of beauty Red the colour of lovers the symbol of unity Red the colour of tomato the symbol of good health Red the colour of hot fire the symbol of burning desire? -- Oluseyi Oluseun If you saw "red" the way I see "blue", would the above poem still make as much sense? If not this suggests the experience of red is not a "raw perception" but contains many deep associations and connections to other aspects of our mind. Even pain, when it feels so singular, can be decomposed via brain surgery. Take this example: Paul Brand, a surgeon and author on the subject of pain recounted the case of a woman who had suffered with a severe and chronic pain for more than a decade: She agreed to a surgery that would separate the neural pathways between her frontal lobes and the rest of her brain. By all accounts the surgery was a success. Brand visited the woman a year later, and inquired about her pain. She said, ?Oh, yes, it?s still there. I just don't worry about it anymore.? While smiling she added, ?In fact, it's still agonizing. But I don't mind.? Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Mon Apr 25 23:52:30 2022 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:52:30 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 08:27, Brent Allsop via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Hi Jason, > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 2:18 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> Hi Brent, >> >> I appreciate your quick response and for getting to the heart of the >> issue. My replies are in-line below: >> > Likewise. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:43 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Jason, >>> Yes, Stathis and I have gone over these same arguments, in a gazillion >>> different ways, for years, still unable to convince the other. I agree >>> with most everything you say, but it is all entirely missing the point. >>> >>> I think you get to the core of the issue with your: >>> "First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question >>> 'What is matter?'" >>> >>> I am curious what your intuition says on this? Do you think that there >> are intrinsic properties of matter (beyond its third-person observable >> behavior) which is somehow necessary for consciousness or quale such as red? >> > > There seems to be a physical strawberry out there, which is red. Our > intuition about the quality of that physical. thing is right, just for the > wrong stuff. It is your physical knowledge of the strawberry that has the > redness quality. > > > >> The issue is with one of these assumptions: >> >>> "1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process >>> can be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine >>> " >>> >>> The isus is that any description of redness (our claim that something is >>> redness) tells you nothing of the nature of redness, without a dictionary >>> pointing to an example of redness. >>> >> >> Yes this is the "symbol grounding problem". All communication, of >> anything (even so-called objective properties like mass, distance, time >> durations, etc.) require ostensive (pointing to) definitions. Since no two >> minds can ever share that common reference frame, and point out to the same >> quale, ostensive definitions of these quale, and hence meaningful >> communication concerning them, is impossible (since there can never be a >> verifiable common foundation). >> > > It's only a "problem" for functionalists. For Materialists it is just a > physical fact that something in the brain has that quality, waiting for us > to discover it. > Say we discover it is glutamate, and that no matter how hard a > functionalist tries, they can't reproduce a redness experience, without > glutamate, as Materialism predicts. > What does that say about your non falsifiable proof? > Forgive my interjection, but if what you call the abstract properties could be reproduced without the qualia, that would allow the existence of partial zombies, which you have agreed are absurd (more obviously so than zombies). It is to avoid the possibility of partial zombies that qualia can't be substrate specific. This is a logical argument, not an empirical one, so not falsifiable in the way a scientific theory is falsifiable. The argument is that IF we have qualia AND IF they are substrate specific AND IF it is possible to reproduce the behaviour (what you call the abstract qualities) without also reproducing the qualia THEN it would be possible to create partial zombies. There are no falsifiable premises here. You can challenge the validity of the reasoning, but you have not done that. > >> >>> This is true for the same reason you can't communicate to a blind person >>> what redness is like, no matter how many words you use. >>> >>> Stathis always makes this same claim: >>> >>> "It is true that functionalism cannot be falsified. But not being >>> falsifiable is a property of every true theory." >>> >>> no matter how many times I point out that if that is true, no matter >>> what you say redness is, it can't be that, either, because you can use the >>> same zombie or neural substitution argument and claim it can't be that >>> either. >>> >> >> I don't follow this point, could you elaborate? >> >> >>> All you prove is that qualia aren't possible. >>> >> >> I do not follow how this conclusions was reached. >> > > Yea, I possibly just skipped past a few complex years of discussion with > Stathis. Basically, no matter what you say redness is (even if it results > from some function), you can "prove" with the neural substitution argument > > that it can't be that, either. Your zombie arguments seem the same, to > me. It doesn't prove that redness must be "functional" it proves there can > be no redness of any kind. Let me know your zombie argument doesn't have > the same problem. > > Again, it's all about the assumptions you make. Everyone assumes the > simulation will succeed. Materialists simply predict it will fail, and > that whatever it is that has the redness quality, when you get to the fist > pixel of redness, nothing but glutamate will enable you to produce an > experience with a redness quality. The substitution will fail. > > > And since we know, absolutely, It is a physical fact that I can >> experience redness, >> >> What does "physical" add to the above sentence? To me it seems redundant >> and only adds to the confusion (as we still haven't settled what is meant >> by physics or matter). >> > > Yea 'physical' is probably redundant. > >> >> >>> this just proves your assumptions (about the nature of matter) are >>> incorrect. >>> >> >> I don't see why you think the assumption of functionalism leads to a >> denial of qualia/consciousness. >> > Again, it is the neural substitution argument, which makes people think > things like redness are functional. But the neural substitution problems > proves nothing, including some function, can have a redness quality. > And my understanding is the main reason people think they are forced to > accept functionalism (despite all the 'hard' problems that go along with > it) is because of neural substitution and zombie arguments. > >> >> >>> To say nothing about all the other so-called 'hard problems' that >>> emerge with that set of assumptions. >>> >>> We can abstractly describe and predict how matter "whatever it is" will >>> behave. But when it comes to intrinsic colorness qualities or qualia, like >>> redness and greenness, you've got to point to some physical example of >>> something that has that redness quality. And without that, there is no >>> possible way to define the word "redness", let alone experience redness. >>> >> >> A shared physical realm is necessary to ostensively define properties >> like mass, distance, and time durations. Two beings, kept apart in two >> different universes but allowed to communicate bit strings back and forth >> could never reach any agreement on how long a "meter" is. >> >> This is the situation we are in with qualia. Two minds are in a sense, >> like two partially isolated simulated universes, with an inability to ever >> share the meaning of what they mean when they refer to their red >> experiences, short of an Avatar-like neural link to temporarily bridge >> their two independent and isolated mental realities. >> > > I thought we already went over this. Brain Hemispheres and conjoined > twins > > prove what you think cannot be done can be done. > If a brain hemisphere isn't an island, why would a brain be so > constrained. it's kind of like saying we will never fly, while watching > birds fly. It is only a matter of time before we can do all of the > following engineereing in an artificial way. > > 1. weak form of effing the ineffable. > 2. Stronger form of effing the ineffable. > 4. Strongest form of effing the ineffable. > > For a more detailed description of these, see this quora answer > > . > > Take the 16th color of the knowledge of that shrimp, which no human has > ever experienced, which you mentioned. > How are you going to reproduce that in your brain, so you can both know > what it is like and then can use it to represent an additional wavelength > of sensed light? > You just need to take whatever it is, and computationally bind it into > your consciousness. Nothing hard about that. > Claiming that could be duplicated simply by programming some function > called 16th colorness quality doesn't even pass the laugh test does it? > > We may not know what matter is, but we know, absolutely, that something > has a redness quality. > We just don't yet know what. That's the only problem. > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 00:03:13 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:03:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 6:33 PM Colin Hales wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 6:19 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> Hi Brent, >> >> I appreciate your quick response and for getting to the heart of the >> issue. My replies are in-line below: >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:43 PM Brent Allsop >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi Jason, >>> Yes, Stathis and I have gone over these same arguments, in a gazillion >>> different ways, for years, still unable to convince the other. I agree >>> with most everything you say, but it is all entirely missing the point. >>> >>> I think you get to the core of the issue with your: >>> "First, I would like you to deeply consider for a moment the question >>> 'What is matter?'" >>> >>> >> I am curious what your intuition says on this? Do you think that there >> are intrinsic properties of matter (beyond its third-person observable >> behavior) which is somehow necessary for consciousness or quale such as red? >> >> >>> The issue is with one of these assumptions: >>> "1. Given the Church-Turing Thesis, any finitely describable process >>> can be perfectly replicated by an appropriately programmed Turing Machine >>> " >>> >>> The isus is that any description of redness (our claim that something is >>> redness) tells you nothing of the nature of redness, without a dictionary >>> pointing to an example of redness. >>> >> >> Yes this is the "symbol grounding problem". All communication, of >> anything (even so-called objective properties like mass, distance, time >> durations, etc.) require ostensive (pointing to) definitions. Since no two >> minds can ever share that common reference frame, and point out to the same >> quale, ostensive definitions of these quale, and hence meaningful >> communication concerning them, is impossible (since there can never be a >> verifiable common foundation). >> > ============================ > > Ok. Can I suggest rethinking things along these lines: > Kitchener, P.D., and Hales, C.G. (2022). What Neuroscientists Think, and > Don?t Think, About Consciousness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 16. > https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2022.767612 > > In terms of 'material' or 'matter' or 'physical' in our biosphere (all of > it rocks to humans), fundamental physics (the standard model) says it is, > effectively, entirely electromagnetic fields from the atomic level up. To > quote the article: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *"The standard model of particle physics is about twice the age ofthe > modern ?correlates-of ? form of the science of consciousness(Cottingham and > Greenwood, 2007; Rich, 2010). In it, physicshas already determined what our > biosphere and everythingin it is made of. It is effectively entirely > electromagnetism(electromagnetic fields). This idea applies to anything > made ofatoms from the table of the elements at a spatiotemporal scaleabove > that of the atomic particles comprising atoms (electronsand nuclei). At the > atomic level and above, we and our hostenvironment are defined by three > things: space, an EM fieldsystem impressed on space (due to subatomic > charge and spincontent tightly bound up with the subatomic mass), and > agravitational field impressed on space (due to sub-atomic > mass,functionally inert in context because it is more than 16 ordersof > magnitude weaker in force transmission than EM). In roughterms, at the > intra-atomic scale, EM fields occupy the spaceoccupied by an atom to the > extent of at least 14,999 parts in15,000. The remaining ?1 part? is the > interior of electrons andnuclei. When you add in the space between atoms, > the proportionof overall spatial occupancy by EM fields is far higher. > Wehumans are nearly entirely EM field objects. In our context ofthe brain, > when we use the words ?material? or ?physical,? thesewords (abstractions) > refer to EM phenomena."* > > Then, in terms of implications ..... > > *"The EM field system impressed on space by brain tissue is* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *therefore not a side effect of cells made of something else. Theentire > tissue is a single, unitary EM field system impressed onspace with > atomic-level resolution. For example, there is nospecial substance that is > a neuron. A neuron is a collectionof EM fields ?behaving neuron-ly? to an > observer made ofEM fields. ?Chemical? or ?chemical reaction,? or > ?chemicalpathway? is a reference toEM field activity. ?Mechanical? (such > assound propagation/transduction/phonons, or cell deformation)is also an EM > phenomenon. ?Electro-chemical? is also selectingphenomena entirely > comprised of EM. ?Quantum mechanics? isnot a substance. It is a set of > (wave-equation-based) quantizingconstraints on EM field expression (such as > that determiningthe electron orbitals in an atom). ?Chemical potential? is > apopulation statistic depicting average EM field properties forparticular > collections of atoms in relation to each other. ?Actionpotentials? are a > system of EM field dynamics propagatingslowly through space longitudinally > following neuronal cellmembrane (also an EM field construct). Synapse > activity(?electrical? and ?chemical?) is an EM field phenomenon. > Thefamiliar electrophysiological measurements made in brain tissuedetect > ?total field? in the brain that is a result of the vector > fieldsuperposition of myriad individual atomic/molecular fieldsources that > superpose to dominate (spatially, temporally, andin intensity) the > underlying atomic/molecular EM field ?noise?found at any point in space. > ?Electrical current? is a transitof an EM field system through space. > Ultraweak biophotonand thermal (heat) radiation is also an EM field > phenomenonoriginating in the same system of atomic sources. Diffusionis a > collection of randomly colliding atomic EM field systemsbouncing off each > other due to EM field-based repulsion. To?touch something? with your finger > is to engage in an interactionbetween the EM field system of a finger > surface and the EM fieldof the touched entity."* > > From the point of view of accounting for a brain (1st- or 3rd- person), > there is only 1 substrate (substrate independence is a myth): it is EM > fields. If you talk about any XYZ-ism at all, then the brain actually > implements it with EM fields. A computer is also 100% EM fields. The > difference is in how the EM is organized. There is no necessary > relationship between the field system organization of a computer and its > function. The chip designers spend a lot of time eliminating field > cross-talk effects (treated as functional errors), confining EM fields to > individual devices. In the brain, nature has created a unique signature in > its EM field expression and the bulk EM field has a functional role. > Field-effect cross talk is so pronounced, that it is possible to regard the > brain as a single, unitary 100% solid EM field object so spatially large > and strong that it spills out into the surrounding tissue (EEG/MEG see it). > But a computer can be built without EM fields, such as in a "Game of Life" universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My8AsV7bA94 Such computers would produce identical behavior to any EM computer. Therefore that an EM field is used in the construction of a computer is of no importance to what the computer is capable of computing. > > In the end I predict that it will be found that the brain will not be > Turing-computable. > It could be, and we can't rule it out, but physicists have yet to find any physical law that is not Turing computable, nor any indication that our brain function depends on infinite amounts of information. > But to explore that you have to stop using general-purpose computers alone > to explore artificial brains. Something that is not in the AI play-book > .... and is a prospect that never gets countenanced in lists like these, > where the great cargo cult of 'to do AGI is to use a > general-purpose-computer' reigns without question. > > There is a reason for that though, it has to do with the universality of computers. From the outside, I understand why it can seem irrational to believe these simple devices will be able to do everything a human can do, all it needs is the right software. But for those that are inside this "cargo cult", those on the outside that say it cannot be done appear like someone claiming to have found a musical instrument that no speaker can replicate. Speakers are universal sound generators. Any sound a human ear can hear, a speaker can generate. To believe in the existence of finite processes that computers cannot perfectly emulate then seems as mad (for those in this cult) as those who proclaim to have a musical instrument whose sound can't be replicated by any speaker. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 00:30:36 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:30:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Subject: disinfecting sunlight >.OK so Musk buys Twitter. I don't know if it is true, but it is reported that many Twitter employees walked away and the others are trying to unionize. Implications please? Thoughts? spike Being as we are all long-time internet hipsters, I am surprised I could toss this out there and have no comments on it. I will offer what it looks like from my chair: the Twitter employees (some of them anyway) wanted to keep their filtering algorithm secret. Why would it be so important to them to keep their filtering algorithm secret? A filtering algorithm is equivalent to the rules for membership. Are there any other examples of an organization or club or game or entity or association where the rules of engagement are intentionally held as company proprietary or kept secret? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 00:56:04 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:56:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: disinfecting sunlight From: spike at rainier66.com > Subject: disinfecting sunlight >.A filtering algorithm is equivalent to the rules for membership. Are there any other examples of an organization or club or game or entity or association where the rules of engagement are intentionally held as company proprietary or kept secret. spike I stay right on this, because. from my limited perspective, what this looks like is the Twitter software guys and management were handed enormous power, enough to intoxicate even the most upright among us (that would be me (kidding, bygones (sheesh, sensa huma.))) Power corrupts. They had power there which is the envy of the world: a huge popular publisher granted the legal protections of a platform, and they could do whatever they wanted, in secret. That is a perfect example of power without accountability. Now. Musk is not even suggesting he will take away their power, but he is bringing transparency, which is accountability. Can anyone find a way to argue this is a bad thing please? Do elaborate. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 02:08:02 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:08:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com . >.Now. Musk is not even suggesting he will take away their power, but he is bringing transparency, which is accountability. >.Can anyone find a way to argue this is a bad thing please? Do elaborate. spike This appears to be a most rare thing: someone with enormous power voluntarily giving up power. By taking on responsibility, in the form of accountability for enormous power, Musk is limiting his own power (in a way) by volunteering transparency. Musk just paid tens of billions of dollars. with a stated goal of limiting his own power. Has anything like this ever happened in history? When? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 02:13:44 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:13:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:09 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > *From:* spike at rainier66.com > *?* > > > > >?Now? Musk is not even suggesting he will take away their power, but he > is bringing transparency, which is accountability. > > > > >?Can anyone find a way to argue this is a bad thing please? Do > elaborate. spike > > > > This appears to be a most rare thing: someone with enormous power > voluntarily giving up power. By taking on responsibility, in the form of > accountability for enormous power, Musk is limiting his own power (in a > way) by volunteering transparency. Musk just paid tens of billions of > dollars? with a stated goal of limiting his own power. > > > > Has anything like this ever happened in history? When? > One could make comparisons to certain of George Washington's actions in the first several years of the United States of America. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 02:38:03 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:38:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:17 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > One could make comparisons to certain of George Washington's actions in > the first several years of the United States of America. > > ### Musk to lead us to storm the bulwarks of our enemies who took the sacred freedoms of the Americans away? Well, yeah! Musk for President! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 02:44:10 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 22:44:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: I tried Twitter years ago and couldn't understand what felt to me like yelling into a hurricane, so still don't understand... But what if this is just how whales swim in an ocean of money-as-influence? Posturing a bank account of $45b to drive speculators wild, then fail to complete the deal because reasons... make more money on the artificial up and the resettle down. Or is Twitter actually a profitable production with a short-term ROI? Where does a $45b valuation come from? Can someone explain how money even works at this level, either generally or in this specific instance? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 02:45:10 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:45:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003701d85917$a60d77d0$f2286770$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:09 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: From: spike at rainier66.com > ? >>? Musk just paid tens of billions of dollars? with a stated goal of limiting his own power. >>?Has anything like this ever happened in history? When? >?One could make comparisons to certain of George Washington's actions in the first several years of the United States of America? Adrian Thanks Adrian, I was hoping someone would say that. I am a huuuuge Washington fan. If you look carefully at the circumstances of Washington?s time in office, it becomes a little clearer. He was still magnanimous as all get out and could perhaps have abused power. But the system was robustly designed to limit that power, which meant he was unable to get congress to pay the army which suffered so severely to give congress the power to not pay them. There was not one damn thing he could do. The constitution was the boss. It outranks everybody. Elon Musk didn?t hafta make that algorithm public, but I think it is the right thing to do. It gives me hope for humanity to see a guy do this voluntarily. I hope Elon Musk lives forever. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 02:46:48 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 19:46:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003e01d85917$e0c55be0$a25013a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Sent: Monday, 25 April, 2022 7:38 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: Rafal Smigrodzki Subject: Re: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:17 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > wrote: One could make comparisons to certain of George Washington's actions in the first several years of the United States of America. ### Musk to lead us to storm the bulwarks of our enemies who took the sacred freedoms of the Americans away? Well, yeah! Musk for President! Rafal I would vote for him multiple times. But? I can?t vote multiple times and Musk can?t run for president: he was born in South Africa. The public square is now owned by an African American. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:01:24 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:01:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:35 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The chip designers spend a lot of time eliminating field > cross-talk effects (treated as functional errors), confining EM fields to > individual devices. In the brain, nature has created a unique signature in > its EM field expression and the bulk EM field has a functional role. > Field-effect cross talk is so pronounced, that it is possible to regard the > brain as a single, unitary 100% solid EM field object so spatially large > and strong that it spills out into the surrounding tissue (EEG/MEG see it). > ### Does the bulk EM field of the brain have a functional role? How? Is there empirical evidence in favor? AFAIK EEG is just noise, not a functional part of the brain. If the EEG had a functional role, then applying external very weak electric fields at the power level of the EEG over the bulk of the brain would produce dramatic cognitive effects, and we know empirically that such electric fields do not have a measurable effect on cognition. The hardware of the brain is a bit different from the hardware that we currently use in computers - the brain makes extensive use of chemical reactions as a substrate of computation and even in long-distance conduction of information, which make it less prone to EM interference, while computers rely almost exclusively on the movements of electrons in conducting and semiconducting media, which makes it more susceptible to EM fields that can push electrons around. TMS does disrupt brain function but you need to use pretty strong magnetic fields. ------------------------- > > In the end I predict that it will be found that the brain will not be > Turing-computable. But to explore that you have to stop using > general-purpose computers alone to explore artificial brains. Something > that is not in the AI play-book .... and is a prospect that never gets > countenanced in lists like these, where the great cargo cult of 'to do AGI > is to use a general-purpose-computer' reigns without question. > > ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities of brains turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, Turing-equivalent computers. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 03:04:20 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:04:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006001d8591a$53d80f40$fb882dc0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat >?Or is Twitter actually a profitable production with a short-term ROI? Where does a $45b valuation come from? Hard to say Mike, but what we had there is a defacto public square with skerjillions of followers, with the power of a publisher and the legal protections of a platform. 45 billion is a laughably small sum to call equivalent to that. If you agree with that theory or assessment of the value of Twitter, then what Musk just did is voluntarily accept accountability for all that power. If unaccountable power is worth what I think it is, then Musk just destroyed unknown hundreds of billions of dollars of ?value.? Good for him. Sheesh how often does a libertarian win anything? It happened today. >?Can someone explain how money even works at this level, either generally or in this specific instance? Nope. Sure can?t Mike. I have no idea how money works in those orders of magnitude. But I know what this looks like. Please, what does it look like to you? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:06:59 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:06:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: <003e01d85917$e0c55be0$a25013a0$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> <003e01d85917$e0c55be0$a25013a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:46 PM wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat > *Sent:* Monday, 25 April, 2022 7:38 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Cc:* Rafal Smigrodzki > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:17 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > One could make comparisons to certain of George Washington's actions in > the first several years of the United States of America. > > > > > > ### Musk to lead us to storm the bulwarks of our enemies who took the > sacred freedoms of the Americans away? > > > > Well, yeah! > > > > Musk for President! > > > > Rafal > > > > I would vote for him multiple times. But? I can?t vote multiple times and > Musk can?t run for president: he was born in South Africa. The public > square is now owned by an African American. > > > > > ### The road to the Musk presidency and to IQ-weighted voting (which would make Spike's vote count multiple times) will be long and arduous but all it takes is a couple of new Amendments, so it's doable. Onward, Soldiers of Twitter! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:09:38 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:09:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:45 PM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I tried Twitter years ago and couldn't understand what felt to me like > yelling into a hurricane, so still don't understand... > > But what if this is just how whales swim in an ocean of money-as-influence? > > Posturing a bank account of $45b to drive speculators wild, then fail to > complete the deal because reasons... make more money on the artificial up > and the resettle down. > > Or is Twitter actually a profitable production with a short-term ROI? > Where does a $45b valuation come from? > > Can someone explain how money even works at this level, either generally > or in this specific instance? > A thing is worth what people are able and willing to pay for it. Nothing more, nothing less. Profitability and other "it should be worth $X because Y" factors only matter insofar as they influence what people are able and willing to pay for it - though, granted, there is usually a loose correlation between a company's earnings and the total value of its stock. Some people were no doubt buying stock just to have a part of such a large enterprise; some others to try to influence Twitter's sizable global voice. Most Twitter investors were probably, as is usually the case, intending to sell it later on to someone who would buy it at a higher price than they bought it for. There is no way that either Musk or the Twitter board were not well aware of the effects their respective public statements would have on investors. Indeed, it is likely that Twitter's board factored this into planning their statements. (Musk may or may not have: it doesn't generally fit his MO, but then, he has not done acquisitions on this scale often enough to have a large company acquisition MO.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:15:38 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:15:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Elon the Deathist In-Reply-To: <003701d85917$a60d77d0$f2286770$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> <003701d85917$a60d77d0$f2286770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:51 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I hope Elon Musk lives forever. > > > ### In a recent interview he said he is against extreme longevity because it could result in an ossification of the society due to old ideas not dying, and would welcome his own death as a "relief". I must say this is where I parted ways with Mr Musk. Using death as the prime way of getting rid of old ideas does sound rather harsh to me. There are interesting neuro-technical and socio-technical challenges that would have to be solved in the Methuselah society to avoid ossification but I am pretty damn sure we don't have to kill old folks just to get rid of their boomer bullshit. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 03:18:24 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:18:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000c01d8591c$4ad3a3d0$e07aeb70$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:17 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat > wrote: One could make comparisons to certain of George Washington's actions in the first several years of the United States of America. ### Musk to lead us to storm the bulwarks of our enemies who took the sacred freedoms of the Americans away? ?Rafal Rafal, Adrian we have been friends for a bunch of years, so you know me well: I love irony. The basis for all my favorite humor is irony and paradox. Love it. I am reading commentary online. Most commentators are celebrating Musk?s acquisition, but some are warning about how evil it is. No matter how they spin it, anything negative they say about Musk opening up the censorship algorithms to the disinfecting rays of sunshine? any bad connotation, anything negative at all? comes across as so unintentionally funny, I scarcely remember having so much fun in one day. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:19:52 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:19:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: <006001d8591a$53d80f40$fb882dc0$@rainier66.com> References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> <006001d8591a$53d80f40$fb882dc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat > > > > >?Or is Twitter actually a profitable production with a short-term ROI? > Where does a $45b valuation come from? > > > > Hard to say Mike, but what we had there is a defacto public square with > skerjillions of followers, with the power of a publisher and the legal > protections of a platform. 45 billion is a laughably small sum to call > equivalent to that. > ### Zuckerberg reportedly said that Twitter was a clown cart that blundered into a gold mine. A new boss and getting rid of some snowflake clowns might be all they need to start serious earning. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 03:24:22 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:24:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] disinfecting sunlight In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> <003e01d85917$e0c55be0$a25013a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001a01d8591d$200e95a0$602bc0e0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat ### The road to the Musk presidency and to IQ-weighted voting (which would make Spike's vote count multiple times) will be long and arduous but all it takes is a couple of new Amendments, so it's doable. Onward, Soldiers of Twitter! Rafal Rafal you are far too kind sir, and likewise I would make your vote count multiple times. However? in the spirit of Elon Musk, I use my power to veto my power to do this. Elon Musk has inspired me, and I do hope he inspired the leaders of other mass communications platforms: open them up. Let the people you don?t like say things you don?t like. We are free to not like them. Let the censorship be understandable and be as transparent as the pristine mountain stream fresh off the snow field. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:58:49 2022 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:58:49 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:35 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >> The chip designers spend a lot of time eliminating field >> cross-talk effects (treated as functional errors), confining EM fields to >> individual devices. In the brain, nature has created a unique signature in >> its EM field expression and the bulk EM field has a functional role. >> Field-effect cross talk is so pronounced, that it is possible to regard the >> brain as a single, unitary 100% solid EM field object so spatially large >> and strong that it spills out into the surrounding tissue (EEG/MEG see it). >> > > ### Does the bulk EM field of the brain have a functional role? How? Is > there empirical evidence in favor? > *The most recent (in 10 years of results) is * Chiang, C.-C., Shivacharan, R.S., Wei, X., Gonzalez-Reyes, L.E., and Durand, D.M. (2019). Slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal slice can self-propagate non-synaptically by a mechanism consistent with ephaptic coupling. The Journal of Physiology 597, 249-269. https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1113/JP276904 When the researchers air-gapped the tissue (1mm) with a scalpel and still got an influence, they pretty much nailed it. The reviewers did not believe them and made them do the experiment again. Here's a collection of references: (Anastassiou and Koch, 2015; Anastassiou, Perin et al., 2011; Chiang, Shivacharan et al., 2019; Frohlich and McCormick, 2010; McFadden, 2020; Qiu, Shivacharan et al., 2015). All ultra-cautious, of course. But it's real. > AFAIK EEG is just noise, not a functional part of the brain. If the EEG > had a functional role, then applying external very weak electric fields at > the power level of the EEG over the bulk of the brain would produce > dramatic cognitive effects, and we know empirically that such electric > fields do not have a measurable effect on cognition. > Saying 'EEG is just noise' is part of the problem! It's not noise. It's complex and originates at the nanometer scale of the neural membrane. Did you read the two quotes? The entire brain is EM from the atomic level up. The EEG/MEG is just the coarse/bulk behaviour measured outside its generating brain tissue. The field system is impressed on space with atomic level resolution and becomes functional at the nanometer-micrometer scale down underneath LFP measurements. Transcranial Electric Stimulation (Electric field) and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) are very blunt instruments, but the effects are obvious and have clinical impact and do affect cognition and behaviour, mood and many other things. The reasons these things do anything is because of the EM basis of everything that is a brain. Even ultrasonic stimulation is an EM phenomenon. Mechanical motion is an EM field phenomenon. Hearing sound is an EM field process. Just like in computers, there is only 1 source of ultimate causality in the brain: The Lorentz force, which is entirely an EM field process. > The hardware of the brain is a bit different from the hardware that we > currently use in computers - the brain makes extensive use of chemical > reactions as a substrate of computation and even in long-distance > conduction of information, which make it less prone to EM interference, > while computers rely almost exclusively on the movements of electrons in > conducting and semiconducting media, which makes it more susceptible to EM > fields that can push electrons around. TMS does disrupt brain function but > you need to use pretty strong magnetic fields. > The 'hardware' of the brain and the computer is based on atoms. Both are 100% EM from the scale of atoms up. A rock is an EM object. Chemical is EM. All 'information' in the brain is encoded in, literally IS, EM phenomena. There is nothing else there in space but EM. 'Long-distance communication' is an EM phenomenon. 'Electric current' is a transit of an EM field through space. The difference between the brain and a computer/heart/liver is in how the EM is organized. All these things are 100% EM from the atoms up. The gigantic amount of information encoded in the literal structure of the brain's EM field system (that pervades the tissue) has no analogue in any general-purpose computer and has no role in any models of brain function (yet) that exist in computer models.. "To 'be' the EM field system impressed on space by a brain is to be conscious" is almost trivially true because there is nothing else to choose from. To 'be' the EM field system impressed on space by a computer, no matter what it is doing, and think it is conscious is to impose a system of unproved assumptions that nobody ever challenges. I am here to challenge it. The conversation has to be reset along the lines of fundamental physics. When you do this everything changes. The whole thing becomes centered on EM. ------------------------- > >> >> In the end I predict that it will be found that the brain will not be >> Turing-computable. But to explore that you have to stop using >> general-purpose computers alone to explore artificial brains. Something >> that is not in the AI play-book .... and is a prospect that never gets >> countenanced in lists like these, where the great cargo cult of 'to do AGI >> is to use a general-purpose-computer' reigns without question. >> >> > ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities of brains > turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, Turing-equivalent > computers. > > Rafal > Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to find out? Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start building artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose computer (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG and MEG), and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose computer's model of of the same tissue? That is the empirical science of consciousness that is missing. That's what I am surprised about: nobody has any clue (if it's Turing computable or not) and the science that tests it one way or another never gets done. It's the most spectacular science blind-spot ever. The science of consciousness and its empirical cousin, AGI, is about to be recentered on a physics/neuroscience collaboration, specifically the EM quadrant of the standard model of particle physics. The 'where to look' part of a science of consciousness is solved. Things have changed. cheers, colin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 03:57:26 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:57:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <497940D5-5AED-4973-9863-CBB4F30FB6C6@alumni.virginia.edu> <004201d840cc$a7f7a380$f7e6ea80$@rainier66.com> <005a01d84137$dd1d95e0$9758c1a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:02 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Nuala and Rafal--of course it wouldn't be tenable to take everything, > particularly stuff like you mentioned that needs a month to build up. But > the experience is free, safe, and quick for many drugs. I just don't > understand why someone who understands that getting information from > textbooks is good would also not conclude that getting information from > drug experiences themselves is good. > > So basically I am just asking, why not? Because you don't "need" it? > Need is subjective. It certainly would improve your understanding. And if > you elect not to do an easy, free, quick thing that would improve > understanding of your job, that just seems like fear or ignorance to me. > > I vaguely agree that pharmaceuticals are often useful but I think they are > far overused in western medicine. Much of what is accomplished with drugs > could be accomplished with counseling, education, physical/mental therapy, > yoga, meditation, etc, all of which have plenty of legitimate backing in > scientific literature. > > Rafal, you say I don't know enough, but I have taken both amphetamine as > well as ziprasidone. So I would say in the field of knowing what those > drugs feel like, I absolutely, constructively know more than you on that > front, because I simply have access to knowledge that you don't have. And > all I'm saying is that it would be easy for you to fix this, try them, and > then your knowledge would be superior to mine. > > I also think worship of certain types of scientific study is an error in > modern medicine. Heck, we even write papers on "anecdotes", they're called > case studies. The fact is that as rigorous as a study is, if it doesn't > ask a certain question, or look at a certain variable, the knowledge gained > on that axis is a big fat zero. And I am saying that without knowing how > these drugs feel, there are variables you can't have knowledge of, and thus > can't study. Often I read papers on drugs and find myself amazed that the > questions they are asking are so incorrect with relation to the experience > itself, particularly with psychedelics. For this reason, Spike's chess > experiment is silly, but I would have a hard time explaining why to someone > who hasn't taken psychedelics, just like I would have a hard time > explaining certain statistical errors to someone who didn't understand > probability distributions and hypothesis testing. > > Anyway I suppose we disagree in the sense that you seem to think taking > amphetamine, ziprasidone, &c. one time each, to gain information, is > somehow not worth it--a safety thing, I guess? Which strikes me as > hypocritical in some way if you'd happily prescribe repeated doses of those > to someone. Why not just try them? > ### As I said, I think I don't need these medications. I am not ideologically opposed to using "substances" to experience new things and yes, I heard about the long-term beneficial effects of single psychedelic sessions which were reported recently. However the so far available information is sparse and definitive proof of improved life outcomes is lacking, as opposed to self-reported improvements in one's feelings about life. I am pretty sure I don't need neuroleptics. Maybe I could be more focused if I used amphetamine. Dunno. Would I be a better doctor if I tried Geodon and Adderall? I really doubt that. The thing is, I am actually pretty satisfied with myself, in a general feeling-of-the-world way. There are angers and frustrations that ruffle the surface of my mind but the depths are calm, and faintly luminous. Being Rafal Smigrodzki feels good. I know from two attempts that a bit of hash won't make it better. I am of the libertarian persuasion so of course I would not deny anybody the right to alter their minds using drugs of their choice but my own choice is, for now and pending additional information, no drugs for me. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 03:59:03 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 20:59:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Elon the Deathist In-Reply-To: References: <000401d858f2$881902a0$984b07e0$@rainier66.com> <002e01d85904$d9fedf10$8dfc9d30$@rainier66.com> <000401d85908$688a8ab0$399fa010$@rainier66.com> <002201d85912$7621f550$6265dff0$@rainier66.com> <003701d85917$a60d77d0$f2286770$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006701d85921$f84b31e0$e8e195a0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Elon the Deathist On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:51 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: I hope Elon Musk lives forever. ### In a recent interview he said he is against extreme longevity because it could result in an ossification of the society due to old ideas not dying, and would welcome his own death as a "relief". Rafal Relief to him, but grief to us. I have an idea however. We can punish Elon for his deathist attitude! We create the technology for an AI which thinks it is Musk, with all his knowledge and attitudes. Then we explain to it (him?): You are just like the meat Musk except? yoooouuu caaaan?t diiiiiieeee! You can?t die! You don?t have that power! Muwaaahaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaa (best evil laugh.) Oh wait, retract, that starts to sound too much like the traditional hell where a prole can?t die. Never mind, damn, let him die, sheesh, have some mercy. Elon is young. To young healthy people, death is a far-away concept even if they talk about it. People coming face to face with death want to live. And think of it this way: suppose Musk gets a call from his medic: ?Sorry to tell ya Elon, you have schperniferous grogstaconitis, nothing we can do, we can scarcely even spell it, you have until about the middle of next week then adios amigo.? After doing something so outrageously insanely cool as buying Twitter to destroy its destructively unlimited destructive power, he wouldn?t have time to see how it all plays out. He wouldn?t have the chance to witness the destruction of destruction. Do let me assure you, he would want to live to see that. We all do. Young people among us, take my word for it: life is a gift. Live it that way. Live every day like it is the priceless gift it really is. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 04:01:41 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:01:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities of brains >> turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, Turing-equivalent >> computers. >> >> Rafal >> > > Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to find out? > Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start building > artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose computer > (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG and MEG), > and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose computer's model > of of the same tissue? > > It looks like this work is in the process of being done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXEuUVkDuw Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 04:13:36 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2022 23:13:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jason Resch Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? To: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM Colin Hales wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:01 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities of brains >>>> turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, Turing-equivalent >>>> computers. >>>> >>>> Rafal >>>> >>> >>> Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to find out? >>> Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start building >>> artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose computer >>> (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG and MEG), >>> and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose computer's model >>> of of the same tissue? >>> >>> >> It looks like this work is in the process of being done: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXEuUVkDuw >> >> Jason >> > > Not even close. Can you see what just happened? There's a general purpose > computer and software involved. The game ends right there! Did you not > read what I wrote. > > To build an artificial version of natural tissue is not to simulate > anything. You build the EM field system literally. The use of computers is > a design tool, not the end product. The chips that do this would be 3D and > have an EEG and MEG like brain tissue. No computers. No software. > > The game has changed! > > What if the computer simulation includes the EM fields? Would that be sufficient to make a conscious program? If not, do you predict the computer simulation including the EM fields would diverge in behavior from the actual brain? Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 06:29:59 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:29:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! Message-ID: Tesla. SpaceX. Neuralink. Now free speech (or at least fair nonpartisan treatment of hate speech) on Twitter. Elon deserves all his money and more. From jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 12:13:04 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:13:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 1:53 AM Colin Hales wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:13 PM Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM Colin Hales wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:01 PM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities of >>>>>> brains turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, >>>>>> Turing-equivalent computers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafal >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to find >>>>> out? Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start building >>>>> artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose computer >>>>> (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG and MEG), >>>>> and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose computer's model >>>>> of of the same tissue? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It looks like this work is in the process of being done: >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXEuUVkDuw >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>> >>> Not even close. Can you see what just happened? There's a general >>> purpose computer and software involved. The game ends right there! Did you >>> not read what I wrote. >>> >>> To build an artificial version of natural tissue is not to simulate >>> anything. You build the EM field system literally. The use of computers is >>> a design tool, not the end product. The chips that do this would be 3D and >>> have an EEG and MEG like brain tissue. No computers. No software. >>> >>> The game has changed! >>> >>> >> What if the computer simulation includes the EM fields? >> >> Would that be sufficient to make a conscious program? >> >> If not, do you predict the computer simulation including the EM fields >> would diverge in behavior from the actual brain? >> >> Jason >> > > *This is exactly the right question!* > > To find out you have to do it. You do not know. I think I know, but I > can't claim to have proof because nobody has done the experiment yet. My > experimental work is at the beginning of testing a hypothesis that the real > EM field dynamics and the simulation's dynamics will not track, and that > the difference will be the non-computable aspect of brains. > I commend you and your work for challenging base assumptions. Such work is always needed in science for progress to be made. The difference, I predict, will be in how the devices relate to the > external world, which is something that cannot be in any model because it > is precisely when the external world is unknown (that nobody can program) > that you are interested in its response (that forms the test context of > interest). In the end it is about the symbol grounding problem. I have a > paper in review (2nd round) at the moment, in which I describe it this way: > ---------------- > The creation of chip materials able to express EM fields structurally > identical to those produced by neurons can be used to construct > artificial neurons that replicate neuron signal processing through allowing > the actual, natural EM fields to naturally interact in the manner they do > in the brain, thereby replicating the same kind of signalling and signal > processing (computation). This kind of in-silico empirical approach is > simply missing from the science. No instances of in-silico-equivalent EM > field replication can be found. Artificial neurons created this way could > help in understanding EM field expression by excitable cell tissue. It > would also facilitate a novel way to test hypotheses in-silico. > What is the easiest way to test this theory of EMs role in consciousness or intelligence? Would you consider the creation of an artificial neural network that exhibits intelligent or novel behavior to be a disproof of this EM theory? Neuroscience and physics, together, could embark on such a development. It > would help us reveal the neural dynamics and signal processing that is > unknowingly not captured by the familiar models that abstract-away EM > fields and that currently dominate computational neuroscience. *Note that > the computational exploration of the EM fields (via Maxwell?s equations) > impressed on space by the novel chip would constitute the design phase of > the chip. The design would be sent to a foundry to build. What comes back > from the foundry would express the EM fields themselves. The empirical > method would be, to neuroscience, what the Wright Brothers construction of > flying craft did for artificial flight.* > ----------------- > The flight analogy is a strong one. Simulation of flight physics is not > flight. > I see this argument a lot but I think it ignores the all important role of the perspective in question. For a being in the simulation of flight, it is flight. If we include an observer in the simulation of a rainstorm, they will get wet. That our hypothetical simulators see only a computer humming along and no water leaking out of their computer says nothing of the experiences and goings-on for the perspective inside the simulation. As consciousness is all about perspectives and inside views, changing the view to focus on the outside is potentially misleading. I could equivalently say, "A person dreaming of a sunrise sees a yellow sun full of brilliant light, but the room is still pitch dark!" But the darkness of the room doesn't tell me anything about whatever experiences the dreaming brain could be having. I think it's the same with computer simulations. There's an external view and an internal view. Each tells very little about the other. I predict that in exactly the same way, in the appropriate context > (novelty), that a simulation of 'braining' will not be a brain (in a manner > to be discovered). The reason, I predict, is that the information content > in the EM field is far larger than anything found in the peripheral > measurement signals hooked to it. The chip that does the fields, I predict, > will handle novelty in a way that parts company with the simulation that > designed the chip. The chip's behaviour (choices) will be different to the > simulation. > I do think that given the chaotic nature of a large and highly complex system where small changes can be magnified, anything not modeled in a brain simulation can lead to divergent behaviors. The question to me is how important those unsimulated aspects are to the fidelity of the mind. Is it all important to the extent the mind is inoperable without including it, or is it something that makes a difference in behavior only after a significantly long run? (Or is it something in between those two extremes?) > The grand assumption of equivalence of "brain" and "computed model of > brain" is and has only ever been an assumption, and the testing that > determines the equivalence has never been done. > I agree with you that it should be. You do not find out by assuming the equivalence and never actually testing > it with a proper control (null hypothesis). Especially when the very thing > that defines the grand failure of AI is when it encounters novelty ... > which is exactly what has been happening for 65 years non-stop. > I am not sure I would say AI has failed here. Take for example, my AI bots. They encountered novelty when I changed their environment repeatedly, and each time they responded by developing new more optimum strategies to cope with those changes. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 13:46:37 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:46:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why? On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 3:37 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:30 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: > > I do not salute Elon Musk for buying Twitter, I wish he hadn't. > > John K Clark > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv2%2BsvW9mv7SEAZDgQ4LeHDj16%2BjiG2Qhacz6y0D3_W4Dg%40mail.gmail.com. From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 13:49:29 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:49:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <497940D5-5AED-4973-9863-CBB4F30FB6C6@alumni.virginia.edu> <004201d840cc$a7f7a380$f7e6ea80$@rainier66.com> <005a01d84137$dd1d95e0$9758c1a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Complicating all drug research: findings that indicate that psychedelic drugs consumed in unfamiliar or lab-type circumstances produce significantly lower levels of 'high' than the same doses taken in their usual environment. I don't know, but this might be true of prescription drugs as well - and, I suggest, the findings might be just the opposite: drugs taken in medical environments do better than the same drugs do at home - placebo effects here likely in both cases. I also seem to recall that if doctors wear white coats they are taken more seriously (can't remember the actual behavioral effects) than if they don't. Rafal might know. Case studies are not worthless. They show, at least, that certain things do occur in human beings. They prove nothing but do lead us to form more rational hypotheses. bill w On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:01 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:02 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> Nuala and Rafal--of course it wouldn't be tenable to take everything, >> particularly stuff like you mentioned that needs a month to build up. But >> the experience is free, safe, and quick for many drugs. I just don't >> understand why someone who understands that getting information from >> textbooks is good would also not conclude that getting information from >> drug experiences themselves is good. >> >> So basically I am just asking, why not? Because you don't "need" it? >> Need is subjective. It certainly would improve your understanding. And if >> you elect not to do an easy, free, quick thing that would improve >> understanding of your job, that just seems like fear or ignorance to me. >> >> I vaguely agree that pharmaceuticals are often useful but I think they >> are far overused in western medicine. Much of what is accomplished with >> drugs could be accomplished with counseling, education, physical/mental >> therapy, yoga, meditation, etc, all of which have plenty of legitimate >> backing in scientific literature. >> >> Rafal, you say I don't know enough, but I have taken both amphetamine as >> well as ziprasidone. So I would say in the field of knowing what those >> drugs feel like, I absolutely, constructively know more than you on that >> front, because I simply have access to knowledge that you don't have. And >> all I'm saying is that it would be easy for you to fix this, try them, and >> then your knowledge would be superior to mine. >> >> I also think worship of certain types of scientific study is an error in >> modern medicine. Heck, we even write papers on "anecdotes", they're called >> case studies. The fact is that as rigorous as a study is, if it doesn't >> ask a certain question, or look at a certain variable, the knowledge gained >> on that axis is a big fat zero. And I am saying that without knowing how >> these drugs feel, there are variables you can't have knowledge of, and thus >> can't study. Often I read papers on drugs and find myself amazed that the >> questions they are asking are so incorrect with relation to the experience >> itself, particularly with psychedelics. For this reason, Spike's chess >> experiment is silly, but I would have a hard time explaining why to someone >> who hasn't taken psychedelics, just like I would have a hard time >> explaining certain statistical errors to someone who didn't understand >> probability distributions and hypothesis testing. >> >> Anyway I suppose we disagree in the sense that you seem to think taking >> amphetamine, ziprasidone, &c. one time each, to gain information, is >> somehow not worth it--a safety thing, I guess? Which strikes me as >> hypocritical in some way if you'd happily prescribe repeated doses of those >> to someone. Why not just try them? >> > > ### As I said, I think I don't need these medications. I am not > ideologically opposed to using "substances" to experience new things and > yes, I heard about the long-term beneficial effects of single psychedelic > sessions which were reported recently. However the so far available > information is sparse and definitive proof of improved life outcomes is > lacking, as opposed to self-reported improvements in one's feelings about > life. I am pretty sure I don't need neuroleptics. Maybe I could be more > focused if I used amphetamine. Dunno. > > Would I be a better doctor if I tried Geodon and Adderall? I really doubt > that. > > The thing is, I am actually pretty satisfied with myself, in a general > feeling-of-the-world way. There are angers and frustrations that ruffle the > surface of my mind but the depths are calm, and faintly luminous. Being > Rafal Smigrodzki feels good. I know from two attempts that a bit of hash > won't make it better. > > I am of the libertarian persuasion so of course I would not deny anybody > the right to alter their minds using drugs of their choice but my own > choice is, for now and pending additional information, no drugs for me. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 14:16:47 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 07:16:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <497940D5-5AED-4973-9863-CBB4F30FB6C6@alumni.virginia.edu> <004201d840cc$a7f7a380$f7e6ea80$@rainier66.com> <005a01d84137$dd1d95e0$9758c1a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007301d85978$448787b0$cd969710$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat ### As I said, I think I don't need these medications. I am not ideologically opposed to using "substances" to experience new things? Ja in principle. But the practice externalizes risk onto society, for we have this habit of feeding people who wreck themselves with chemicals. >? and yes, I heard about the long-term beneficial effects of single psychedelic sessions which were reported recently? Ja, but it was reported by the same people who self-reported being able to think 1000 times faster after devouring magic mushrooms, with no actual chess games to prove it. If they feel better, well OK then, I suppose we hafta accept it, for they are the only ones who know how they feel. I have my doubts that some chemical can somehow go inside a brain and fix something permanently. In theory perhaps, but it is easier to imagine some chemical going inside a brain and wrecking something. I try to keep an open mind. >?The thing is, I am actually pretty satisfied with myself, in a general feeling-of-the-world way? Me too! The difference is, I am often insufferably self-satisfied. Friends have suggested depressants such as Despondex. Rafal, you aren?t that way. Thanks for being you, sir. >?I am of the libertarian persuasion so of course I would not deny anybody the right to alter their minds using drugs of their choice but my own choice is, for now and pending additional information, no drugs for me. Rafal Same here. I have a notion on which our local psychologist BillW might offer insights. A prole can go to a doctor (such as Rafal) and they can give her pills and medications, but for some problems she can go to a physical therapist or a chiropractor, who can do some treatments but do not go inside the body (well? OK some do that, but that isn?t what they are supposed to be doing for her.) Many report that the PT or Chiro does good things, and it appears generally safe I suppose. One can go to a psychiatrist and he can give her pills and medications, but in principle, a mind might still be OK enough to understand whatever is making it not well and fix itself from within, excluding the use of chemical agents. I have seen it done. No matter how we look at it, chemical agents are just harder to control and predict outcomes. So in a way, psychology is analogous to a good physical therapist, an honest one, the kind who stays outside the body but does good things for the patient. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 14:27:23 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 07:27:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat Sent: Monday, 25 April, 2022 11:30 PM To: ExI chat list ; extropolis at googlegroups.com; turingchurch at googlegroups.com Cc: Giulio Prisco Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! Tesla. SpaceX. Neuralink. Now free speech (or at least fair nonpartisan treatment of hate speech) on Twitter. Elon deserves all his money and more. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Thanks for that Giulio. Here is a challenge to all who have a public speech platform: you don't need to be non-partisan, you don't even need to be fair. Just be transparent. Let everyone see how you roll. Be open. It's what we always did here on this forum: transparency. Keeping a filtering algorithm secret is unaccountable power, which always leads to corruption. So... wield the power, accept the accountability that goes with it, be transparent. Way to Elon. I still won't buy your cars, but I will cheer for those who do: it is solving some problems. Speaking of SpaceX, something that hasn't been discussed here but is relevant to our interests: that whole notion of fly-back first stages landing on their feet has a feature of great importance: it scales up. spike From giulio at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 15:01:04 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:01:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:27 PM wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of > Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat > Sent: Monday, 25 April, 2022 11:30 PM > To: ExI chat list ; > extropolis at googlegroups.com; turingchurch at googlegroups.com > Cc: Giulio Prisco > Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! > > Tesla. SpaceX. Neuralink. Now free speech (or at least fair nonpartisan > treatment of hate speech) on Twitter. Elon deserves all his money and more. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > > Thanks for that Giulio. > > Here is a challenge to all who have a public speech platform: you don't need > to be non-partisan, you don't even need to be fair. Just be transparent. > Let everyone see how you roll. Be open. It's what we always did here on > this forum: transparency. Yes. I want to see MORE free speech on Twitter, but if that is not an option, then I want to see LESS free speech on Twitter. That is, they should use exactly the same censorship criteria against both sides, not only one. > Keeping a filtering algorithm secret is > unaccountable power, which always leads to corruption. So... wield the > power, accept the accountability that goes with it, be transparent. > > Way to Elon. I still won't buy your cars, but I will cheer for those who > do: it is solving some problems. > > Speaking of SpaceX, something that hasn't been discussed here but is > relevant to our interests: that whole notion of fly-back first stages > landing on their feet has a feature of great importance: it scales up. > > spike > From giulio at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 15:07:15 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:07:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Extropolis] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 5:02 PM John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 9:46 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: > >>> > I do not salute Elon Musk for buying Twitter, I wish he hadn't. >> >> >> > Why? > > > History has clearly shown that exercising minimal editorial control over Twitter can lead to profoundly negative consequences, and now the world's richest man, who has just bought it, says he will exercise no editorial control at all. I'm not saying what Musk proposes to do should be made illegal, if I own the world's loudest megaphone I have the right to let anybody I want borrow it and say anything they want no matter how crazy or stupid or downright evil it is, but I am saying it would be immoral and irresponsible to do so. > Perhaps you have a point here, but Twitter has a partisan bias problem. One side can say everything, the other side can say nothing. Copying my reply to Spike: I want to see MORE free speech on Twitter, but if that is not an option, then I want to see LESS free speech on Twitter. That is, they should use exactly the same censorship criteria against both sides, not only one. > John K Clark > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "extropolis" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to extropolis+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/extropolis/CAJPayv23jsK05cGfBYeunyQXQT85YXuK%3Dex8VWwt4ZYzL2mkRg%40mail.gmail.com. From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 15:10:30 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:10:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: Giulio Prisco > >>... Thanks for that Giulio. > >>... Here is a challenge to all who have a public speech platform: you > don't need to be non-partisan, you don't even need to be fair. Just be transparent. > Let everyone see how you roll. Be open. It's what we always did here > on this forum: transparency. >...Yes. I want to see MORE free speech on Twitter, but if that is not an option, then I want to see LESS free speech on Twitter. That is, they should use exactly the same censorship criteria against both sides, not only one... Giulio Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and a libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern John Galt.) I would even accept one-sided censorship, so long as we can see exactly what they are doing, and users can choose if they want to participate in a biased platform. I have enjoyed myself reading what the mainstream news people had to say about the whole thing, mostly negative. The prize for the most epic self-own goes to MSNBC's Ari Melber, who commented: "If you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don?t have to explain yourself, you don?t even have to be transparent, you could secretly ban one party?s candidate or all of its candidates, all of it nominees." Ari Melber Oh what an epic self-own was that. PWNED! All your base are belong to us! A prominent member of the mainstream press demonstrates that he is perfectly OK with partisan censorship, so long as it is done in his favor. He not only opposes anyone else having that power, he opposes anyone buying the power and making it neutral and transparent, which is what Musk is doing with Twitter. The mainstream press is threatened by neutrality and transparency. spike From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 15:12:00 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:12:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 15:30, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Thanks for that Giulio. > > Here is a challenge to all who have a public speech platform: you don't need > to be non-partisan, you don't even need to be fair. Just be transparent. > Let everyone see how you roll. Be open. It's what we always did here on > this forum: transparency. Keeping a filtering algorithm secret is > unaccountable power, which always leads to corruption. So... wield the > power, accept the accountability that goes with it, be transparent. > > spike > _______________________________________________ Transparency is a two-edged sword. I don't use Twitter and I suspect you don't either. But nowadays, we are dealing with the 'Cancel' generation who are very easily offended if someone doesn't use the latest Newspeak terminology and support the latest trending opinions. When the Twitter crowd of trolls decide to pile on someone, the volume of tweets containing hatred and prejudice is unbelievable. It has driven some people to suicide. Surely you have read about this despicable behaviour? Twitter and Facebook moderators make little attempt to stop such hatred campaigns. Fortunately some old-fashioned email lists (like Exi-chat) are still able to allow free speech that doesn't menace other list members or ruin the list atmosphere. BillK. From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 15:49:18 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:49:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] eating what you need Message-ID: https://neurosciencenews.com/nutritional-intelligence-20464/ I read of this baby study (which could have been replicated ethically, I am sure) many years ago and have validated it in my own experience: when I get short of some nutrient I start eating foods that supply it. This is esp. true of green things: after some time of not eating them, when I do my brain rewards me with great taste, far more than I usually experience with that food. The next day the same food does taste anything special - I have gotten the nutrients I needed. "You know, I think I'd like some ________." And you have no idea where this came from. And when you do eat it, it is esp. good. Have you had these experiences before? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 15:56:18 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:56:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: If the hate speech on the medium gets out of hand (and who decides that?), simply create Twitter II or FAcebook II, and put all the 'problem' posts there rather than denying someone his voice. Hate unfortunately has its place and in its way is valuable data. bill w On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:31 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 15:30, spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > Thanks for that Giulio. > > > > Here is a challenge to all who have a public speech platform: you don't > need > > to be non-partisan, you don't even need to be fair. Just be transparent. > > Let everyone see how you roll. Be open. It's what we always did here on > > this forum: transparency. Keeping a filtering algorithm secret is > > unaccountable power, which always leads to corruption. So... wield the > > power, accept the accountability that goes with it, be transparent. > > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > > > Transparency is a two-edged sword. > I don't use Twitter and I suspect you don't either. > But nowadays, we are dealing with the 'Cancel' generation who are very > easily offended if someone doesn't use the latest Newspeak terminology > and support the latest trending opinions. > When the Twitter crowd of trolls decide to pile on someone, the volume > of tweets containing hatred and prejudice is unbelievable. > It has driven some people to suicide. > Surely you have read about this despicable behaviour? > Twitter and Facebook moderators make little attempt to stop such > hatred campaigns. > > Fortunately some old-fashioned email lists (like Exi-chat) are still > able to allow free speech that doesn't menace other list members or > ruin the list atmosphere. > > > BillK. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 16:05:43 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:05:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002d01d85987$7c744000$755cc000$@rainier66.com> .> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat ... > Thanks for that Giulio. > >>... Here is a challenge to all who have a public speech platform: you > don't need to be non-partisan, you don't even need to be fair. Just be transparent. > Let everyone see how you roll. Be open. It's what we always did here > on this forum: transparency. Keeping a filtering algorithm secret is > unaccountable power, which always leads to corruption. So... wield > the power, accept the accountability that goes with it, be transparent. > > spike > _______________________________________________ >...Transparency is a two-edged sword. I don't use Twitter and I suspect you don't either. But nowadays, we are dealing with the 'Cancel' generation who are very easily offended if someone doesn't use the latest Newspeak terminology and support the latest trending opinions. When the Twitter crowd of trolls decide to pile on someone, the volume of tweets containing hatred and prejudice is unbelievable. It has driven some people to suicide. Surely you have read about this despicable behaviour? Twitter and Facebook moderators make little attempt to stop such hatred campaigns. >.Fortunately some old-fashioned email lists (like Exi-chat) are still able to allow free speech that doesn't menace other list members or ruin the list atmosphere. BillK. _______________________________________________ Ja to all. We have always made it clear what is allowed and what is not. In an email group, we are among friends. We should never abuse each other or abuse the forum, and the moderators shouldn't allow it. A platform can be partisan, I have no problem with that. We live in an age when businesses, mass media and even government, is dividing into two and becoming openly partisan. I am OK with that, so long as they don't pretend to be otherwise. (In the states, our own federal law enforcement has become openly partisan. I am not OK with that, because we help pay for it.) Let the public see how the media platform filtering algorithm works, let them download the filtering algorithm and test their posts before they post to Twitter or other publisher pretending to be a platform. The publishers pretending to be platforms can right ahead and do that, just don't be sneaky about it. Google used to be the Don't Be Evil company, well, they should all be the Don't Be Sneaky companies. Be partisan if you wish, just be transparent. Tell us where you stand on libertarians and free speech please. Regarding hate speech on Twitter: I am not a user. I signed up a month ago to follow Elon Musk (because I am a fan of him) then it took me eleven tries to get thru an apparently defective bot filter. Eventually got thru. The lead software engineer posted something that might have been a joke but I don't know: he said he had "proactively banned" Elon Musk. I interpreted that as he banned Musk based not on what he posted but rather on what they were afraid he would post. Apparently it is genuine. I just went to Jay Holler's own Twitter site and here it is: OK so. we have people who are opposed to Musk buying Twitter in order to free speech, but not wanting to appear to oppose free speech. No matter how skilled the commentator, defending that position is just a very difficult task. It's harder than being the defense attorney for Charles Manson. I haven't yet seen anyone do it effectively. Anyone seen a reasonable argument for why Musk owning Twitter is really a bad thing? Do share please. They all come across as saying "I am OK with unaccountable power so long as I am the one wielding it." spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 12730 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 16:10:19 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 09:10:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003501d85988$20706210$61512630$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat ... >.When the Twitter crowd of trolls decide to pile on someone, the volume of tweets containing hatred and prejudice is unbelievable. . BillK. _______________________________________________ Never mind, the deal's off: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23599 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 19:02:59 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 20:02:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <002d01d85987$7c744000$755cc000$@rainier66.com> References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> <002d01d85987$7c744000$755cc000$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 17:08, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > OK so? we have people who are opposed to Musk buying Twitter in order to free speech, but not wanting to appear to oppose free speech. No matter how skilled the commentator, defending that position is just a very difficult task. It?s harder than being the defense attorney for Charles Manson. I haven?t yet seen anyone do it effectively. Anyone seen a reasonable argument for why Musk owning Twitter is really a bad thing? Do share please. They all come across as saying ?I am OK with unaccountable power so long as I am the one wielding it.? > > spike > _______________________________________________ The EU has just warned Elon that 'Free speech' doesn't mean 'Everything is allowed'. Quotes: A top European Union regulator warned billionaire Elon Musk on Tuesday that Twitter will have to comply with the EU's digital rules under his ownership, complicating Musk's ambitious free speech agenda. ?Anyone who wants to benefit from this market will have to fulfill our rules. The board [of Twitter] will have to make sure that if it operates in Europe, it will have to fulfill the obligations, including moderation, open algorithms, freedom of speech, transparency in rules, obligations to comply with our own rules for hate speech, revenge porn, [and] harassment,? Breton said. ?If [Twitter] does not comply with our law, there are sanctions: 6% of the revenue and, if they continue, banned from operating in Europe,? Breton said. ------------ So Elon may have to hire thousands of moderators to clean up Twitter. And then pay them sick pay while they recover from the PTSD acquired from the trauma of what they have to deal with. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 19:22:11 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:22:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> <002d01d85987$7c744000$755cc000$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002801d859a2$edf2dc80$c9d89580$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat ... > _______________________________________________ The EU has just warned Elon that 'Free speech' doesn't mean 'Everything is allowed'. Quotes: A top European Union regulator warned billionaire Elon Musk on Tuesday that Twitter will have to comply with the EU's digital rules under his ownership, complicating Musk's ambitious free speech agenda. ?Anyone who wants to benefit from this market will have to fulfill our rules. The board [of Twitter] will have to make sure that if it operates in Europe, it will have to fulfill the obligations, including moderation, open algorithms, freedom of speech, transparency in rules, obligations to comply with our own rules for hate speech, revenge porn, [and] harassment,? Breton said. ?If [Twitter] does not comply with our law, there are sanctions: 6% of the revenue and, if they continue, banned from operating in Europe,? Breton said. ------------ So Elon may have to hire thousands of moderators to clean up Twitter. And then pay them sick pay while they recover from the PTSD acquired from the trauma of what they have to deal with. BillK _______________________________________________ Heh, thanks BillK, a fun self-own from Mr. Breton. Notice that Elon didn't say he intended to change the moderation algorithms. He didn't say anything about turning them off. He only said the moderation would be public domain. OK then. If Twitter was allowed to operate in Europe before, is there any reason to think it shouldn't be allowed to operate with all the same rules as before but with those rules public? And if there are specific people who are blocked and those blocks are cancelled, does that put them in violation of Europe's speech rules? Anyone? Anyone? Beuuuuullerrrrr... spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 19:31:59 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:31:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <002801d859a2$edf2dc80$c9d89580$@rainier66.com> References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> <002d01d85987$7c744000$755cc000$@rainier66.com> <002801d859a2$edf2dc80$c9d89580$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002901d859a4$4c9fcf80$e5df6e80$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com ... _______________________________________________ >...Heh, thanks BillK, a fun self-own from Mr. Breton.... And if there are specific people who are blocked and those blocks are cancelled, does that put them in violation of Europe's speech rules? spike Do pardon my Buellering you with that previous post, but notice I haven't Buellered you for some time. This occasion is just so good, I can't help myself. We have a perfect example here where any (ANY!) argument that {what Musk said he wants to do = bad} turns into an epic self-own. I invite anyone here, particularly you more creative writers, to think of a reason why what Musk said he wants to do is a bad thing. Do try to accomplish this without sounding silly or implicating the writer. I figure you know me well enough to know I am a hard-core libertarian, an information-wants-to-be-free and speech-wants-to-be-free type, so you already know that if I attempt the above challenge you will know I don't really mean it. Rather I am doing it as an exercise, kinda like an attorney who defends a client knowing damn well his own client dunnit. OK here goes. We all like free speech, and it isn't that we don't like free speech. But those who design the blocking algorithms will now just work differently knowing that someone is watching. Oh wait, never mind that is a self-own too. OK try this: We all like freedom and all, but... Retract. That phrase just can't be followed by a comma and a but. It can only be followed by a period and two spaces. Damn this hard. I am Buellering myself right now. I cannot think of a way to spin this in a negative way without self-owning. Anyone? spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 19:40:36 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:40:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <002901d859a4$4c9fcf80$e5df6e80$@rainier66.com> References: <008c01d85979$bf5456c0$3dfd0440$@rainier66.com> <002d01d85987$7c744000$755cc000$@rainier66.com> <002801d859a2$edf2dc80$c9d89580$@rainier66.com> <002901d859a4$4c9fcf80$e5df6e80$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000401d859a5$80b34da0$8219e8e0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com >...Do pardon my Buellering you with that previous post, but notice I haven't Buellered you for some time. This occasion is just so good, I can't help myself...spike Let us get right to the heart of the matter, shall we? OK, we shall. Elon Musk was "proactively blocked" from Twitter, not because of what he posted there, but because of what they feared he would post there if allowed to post there. Now, the objections to his owning Twitter are not based on what he actually said he would do, but rather on what the objectors clearly say they fear he will do: the same things they have done, are doing and will do in the future if they can somehow stop Musk from exposing them. For those following the story, does not that pretty much sum it up? spike From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:00:14 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:00:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and a libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern John Galt.) Recall how in Rand?s novel John Galt got all those government contracts? Remember how Galt was the scion of a wealthy family? You don?t recall those things? Well, that?s because Galt wasn?t born into wealth and didn?t step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund. (Yeah, Galt is a fictional character, but his fictional biography is of someone born into a lower middle class family, leaving home at 12, and working his way up from there.) This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s hardly a John Galt. Regards, Dan From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:20:11 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:20:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> On Mar 18, 2022, at 6:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? > >?Why are you so against it? I don't really understand. Upbringing? It seems very anti-learning? > > Could be early perceptions are influencing my attitude. When I was a child, rock stars seemed to be dropping dead regularly. Judy Garland (ja I know she wasn?t a rock star, but liked her voice), Judy Garland died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using psychedelics. > Alan Wilson, Wilson also died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using psychedelics. > Jimi Hendrix He died from asphyxiation after using barbiturates from choking on his own vomit. Again, not from psychedelics. > and Janis Joplin She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. > were all in the same few weeks as I recall, Jim Morrison Seems to have died of a heroin overdose too, though no autopsy was performed. > was a little later, Mama Cass they half-ass tried to tell us she choked on a ham sandwich, but we suspect it was dope or perhaps heart failure. Based on what? The coroner said she choked to death while eating a sandwich in bed. Why do you believe this to be in error? Anyhow, probably not psychedelics. > It did seem like drugs were taking a lotta stars, The drugs being barbiturates, heroin, and eating in bed ? not psychedelics. (I?d hazard a guess alcohol and tobacco have probably done more stars in.) > and ja I realize acid ODs are not fatal usually but in any case, I do admire your openness and honesty about the risks, going crazy and vast nightmare realms. That last part has a poetic ring to it, but I would rather read about it in a poem than live it. The risks I?d be more worried about with psychedelics are a) not knowing what you?re getting ? which could mean the dose level as well as impurities, both factors having to do with they?re mostly being illegal ? and b) doing something dangerous while on them ? such as deciding to walk into traffic. The second can be mitigated by having trusted people around to guide you. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:29:38 2022 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:29:38 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:14 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 1:53 AM Colin Hales wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:13 PM Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM Colin Hales >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:01 PM Jason Resch >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities of >>>>>>> brains turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, >>>>>>> Turing-equivalent computers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafal >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to find >>>>>> out? Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start building >>>>>> artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose computer >>>>>> (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG and MEG), >>>>>> and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose computer's model >>>>>> of of the same tissue? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> It looks like this work is in the process of being done: >>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXEuUVkDuw >>>>> >>>>> Jason >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not even close. Can you see what just happened? There's a general >>>> purpose computer and software involved. The game ends right there! Did you >>>> not read what I wrote. >>>> >>>> To build an artificial version of natural tissue is not to simulate >>>> anything. You build the EM field system literally. The use of computers is >>>> a design tool, not the end product. The chips that do this would be 3D and >>>> have an EEG and MEG like brain tissue. No computers. No software. >>>> >>>> The game has changed! >>>> >>>> >>> What if the computer simulation includes the EM fields? >>> >>> Would that be sufficient to make a conscious program? >>> >>> If not, do you predict the computer simulation including the EM fields >>> would diverge in behavior from the actual brain? >>> >>> Jason >>> >> >> *This is exactly the right question!* >> >> To find out you have to do it. You do not know. I think I know, but I >> can't claim to have proof because nobody has done the experiment yet. My >> experimental work is at the beginning of testing a hypothesis that the real >> EM field dynamics and the simulation's dynamics will not track, and that >> the difference will be the non-computable aspect of brains. >> > > I commend you and your work for challenging base assumptions. Such work is > always needed in science for progress to be made. > > The difference, I predict, will be in how the devices relate to the >> external world, which is something that cannot be in any model because it >> is precisely when the external world is unknown (that nobody can program) >> that you are interested in its response (that forms the test context of >> interest). In the end it is about the symbol grounding problem. I have a >> paper in review (2nd round) at the moment, in which I describe it this way: >> ---------------- >> The creation of chip materials able to express EM fields structurally >> identical to those produced by neurons can be used to construct >> artificial neurons that replicate neuron signal processing through allowing >> the actual, natural EM fields to naturally interact in the manner they do >> in the brain, thereby replicating the same kind of signalling and signal >> processing (computation). This kind of in-silico empirical approach is >> simply missing from the science. No instances of in-silico-equivalent EM >> field replication can be found. Artificial neurons created this way could >> help in understanding EM field expression by excitable cell tissue. It >> would also facilitate a novel way to test hypotheses in-silico. >> > > What is the easiest way to test this theory of EMs role in consciousness > or intelligence? > > Would you consider the creation of an artificial neural network that > exhibits intelligent or novel behavior to be a disproof of this EM theory? > > Neuroscience and physics, together, could embark on such a development. It >> would help us reveal the neural dynamics and signal processing that is >> unknowingly not captured by the familiar models that abstract-away EM >> fields and that currently dominate computational neuroscience. *Note >> that the computational exploration of the EM fields (via Maxwell?s >> equations) impressed on space by the novel chip would constitute the design >> phase of the chip. The design would be sent to a foundry to build. What >> comes back from the foundry would express the EM fields themselves. The >> empirical method would be, to neuroscience, what the Wright Brothers >> construction of flying craft did for artificial flight.* >> ----------------- >> The flight analogy is a strong one. Simulation of flight physics is not >> flight. >> > > I see this argument a lot but I think it ignores the all important role of > the perspective in question. > > For a being in the simulation of flight, it is flight. If we include an > observer in the simulation of a rainstorm, they will get wet. > > That our hypothetical simulators see only a computer humming along and no > water leaking out of their computer says nothing of the experiences and > goings-on for the perspective inside the simulation. > > As consciousness is all about perspectives and inside views, changing the > view to focus on the outside is potentially misleading. I could > equivalently say, "A person dreaming of a sunrise sees a yellow sun full of > brilliant light, but the room is still pitch dark!" But the darkness of the > room doesn't tell me anything about whatever experiences the dreaming brain > could be having. > > I think it's the same with computer simulations. There's an external view > and an internal view. Each tells very little about the other. > > > I predict that in exactly the same way, in the appropriate context >> (novelty), that a simulation of 'braining' will not be a brain (in a manner >> to be discovered). The reason, I predict, is that the information content >> in the EM field is far larger than anything found in the peripheral >> measurement signals hooked to it. The chip that does the fields, I predict, >> will handle novelty in a way that parts company with the simulation that >> designed the chip. The chip's behaviour (choices) will be different to the >> simulation. >> > > I do think that given the chaotic nature of a large and highly complex > system where small changes can be magnified, anything not modeled in a > brain simulation can lead to divergent behaviors. The question to me is how > important those unsimulated aspects are to the fidelity of the mind. Is it > all important to the extent the mind is inoperable without including it, or > is it something that makes a difference in behavior only after a > significantly long run? (Or is it something in between those two extremes?) > > >> The grand assumption of equivalence of "brain" and "computed model of >> brain" is and has only ever been an assumption, and the testing that >> determines the equivalence has never been done. >> > > I agree with you that it should be. > > You do not find out by assuming the equivalence and never actually testing >> it with a proper control (null hypothesis). Especially when the very thing >> that defines the grand failure of AI is when it encounters novelty ... >> which is exactly what has been happening for 65 years non-stop. >> > > I am not sure I would say AI has failed here. > > Take for example, my AI bots. They encountered novelty when I changed > their environment repeatedly, and each time they responded by developing > new more optimum strategies to cope with those changes. > > Jason > ____________ If you read the article I posted, you will find the state of affairs that you are projecting into simulation is called 'magical' or radical/strong emergence. Proving true/false what you are projecting into simulation is precisely the final outcome that a proper science of EM-based subjectivity will sort out. My prediction is that none of the things you expect will happen because the EM fields are organized incorrectly. They are organized in the form of a computer. Everything that the brain does to organize subjectivity is lost. So I guess we'll just have to wait till the science gets done properly. Only then will you know whether any of your expectations are valid. cheers Colin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 20:27:27 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:27:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001001d859ac$0c525940$24f70bc0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >...This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s hardly a John Galt. Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ Ja, no worries Dan, I agree Musk isn't like Galt in every way. Musk and Galt share that they are two guys ready to bet it all on a vision. The rockets landing on their feet notion was based on solid engineering, but no one really knew for sure if it could be done. Well, it can. The equations and control models were right. It demonstrates an important way forward in heavy lift, while leaving plenty of room for small lift using solids, such as Adrian is doing. The heavy-lift industry had no way forward that I can see other than the landing-feet-first boosters and scaling up. In the electric car biz, Musk did something I woulda bet against had I the intestinal fortitude to sell short: set up a car manufacturing plant in the Silicon Valley. I didn't sell short (fortunately) but I didn't buy the stock either (most unfortunately.) Plenty of my neighbors did, and plenty of my neighbors now drive Teslas and own power walls and solar cells. Good for them, and good for me indirectly: power rates came down. Details cheerfully available on request. Regarding Musk getting into the multimedia business: he has said what he wants to do. He didn't say he would dismantle the Twitter censorship, only make it public. Critics are left to argue (clumsily, comically and self-owney) that this is equivalent to dismantling the censors, because... em... they would... they... would not... errrr... they might...uh... be kinda... Oh wait my phone is ringing, pardon me... Heh. I have yet to see an argument from anyone that really convinces me there is a downside to making public the censoring and blocking algorithms of Twitter. I have seen plenty of reasons to think that Face Book and TikTok and the others should damn well do likewise. They won't of course, but otherwise... we just hafta wonder what it is they are hiding. If they refuse to disclose their blocking algorithms, do they not realize that has the appearance of impropriety? Dan, in your view, does it have the appearance of impropriety for Twitter to hide that algorithm? It does to us too. spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 20:43:50 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:43:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <001001d859ac$0c525940$24f70bc0$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> <001001d859ac$0c525940$24f70bc0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000a01d859ae$561814f0$02483ed0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike at rainier66.com >?Regarding Musk getting into the multimedia business: he has said what he wants to do. He didn't say he would dismantle the Twitter censorship, only make it public. Critics are left to argue (clumsily, comically and self-owney) that this is equivalent to dismantling the censors, because... em... they would... they... would not... errrr... they might...uh... be kinda... Oh wait my phone is ringing, pardon me... >?Heh. spike Oh ja, forgot another important thing: Elon favors adding an edit feature to tweets. Most tweeters have tweeted some goofy mistake or misjudged something or stated something odd, something that could be clarified, or improved just by removing one injudicious word: Why not have an edit feature? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 17012 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 20:58:21 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 21:58:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <000a01d859ae$561814f0$02483ed0$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> <001001d859ac$0c525940$24f70bc0$@rainier66.com> <000a01d859ae$561814f0$02483ed0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 21:46, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Oh ja, forgot another important thing: Elon favors adding an edit feature to tweets. Most tweeters have tweeted some goofy mistake or misjudged something or stated something odd, something that could be clarified, or improved just by removing one injudicious word: > > Why not have an edit feature? > > spike > _______________________________________________ Because people (especially politicians) like to deny they said something. So they go back and change their tweet. Exi-chat doesn't allow posts to be edited. Only abject apologies and a new post. :) BillK From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 21:02:53 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:02:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: There are a couple specific fake drugs you might get like 25i-NBOMe instead of LSD but in general psychs are pretty clean. Mushrooms are usually mushrooms, acid is usually acid, DMT is usually DMT. The latter 2 are hypothetically easy for anyone to produce from legal items, too. IMO the main danger of psychedelics would be longer-term mental issues like depression or paranoia. Usually the worst that would happen in an extreme bad trip scenario is someone thinks they have to go to the hospital (panic attack) and then has a shitty time there because a hospital is probably a pretty bad place to be tripping (or worse, jail or the back of a police car). But yeah I'd say long-term derealization/dissociation effects are worst case. Once you see the fabric that reality is made of, things can feel fake if you don't integrate that property. It's like being in Conway's Game of Life and then SEEING the entire board and thinking "wtf, we're all just squares?!". The trick is to realize that life and consciousness don't distinguish between substrates so it's fine to be squares or whatever. Of course the squarely SQUARE squares I'm squaring off with here won't care, for them it's neither here nor there...but if they dare to partake in the apparently perilous fare of a 3mmx3mm^2 square of Lysergs?ure (which I would share) then maybe they could tear through the error of seeing what seems to be there as something (not squares,) and then be aware that we are but squares acting and acted in a square fable reflected and refracted on a square stage, and albeit strange they would be able and willing to pare that silly error filling their minds, and see through the cracks and the tears, as they reacted then they would in fact find that magic is...[BLACKED OUT, REDACTED] ;) On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:21 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mar 18, 2022, at 6:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? > > >?Why are you so against it? I don't really understand. Upbringing? It > seems very anti-learning? > > > > Could be early perceptions are influencing my attitude. When I was a > child, rock stars seemed to be dropping dead regularly. Judy Garland (ja I > know she wasn?t a rock star, but liked her voice), > > > Judy Garland died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using > psychedelics. > > Alan Wilson, > > > Wilson also died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using > psychedelics. > > Jimi Hendrix > > > He died from asphyxiation after using barbiturates from choking on his own > vomit. Again, not from psychedelics. > > and Janis Joplin > > > She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. > > were all in the same few weeks as I recall, Jim Morrison > > > Seems to have died of a heroin overdose too, though no autopsy was > performed. > > was a little later, Mama Cass they half-ass tried to tell us she choked > on a ham sandwich, but we suspect it was dope or perhaps heart failure. > > > Based on what? The coroner said she choked to death while eating a > sandwich in bed. Why do you believe this to be in error? Anyhow, probably > not psychedelics. > > It did seem like drugs were taking a lotta stars, > > > The drugs being barbiturates, heroin, and eating in bed ? not > psychedelics. (I?d hazard a guess alcohol and tobacco have probably done > more stars in.) > > and ja I realize acid ODs are not fatal usually but in any case, I do > admire your openness and honesty about the risks, going crazy and vast > nightmare realms. That last part has a poetic ring to it, but I would > rather read about it in a poem than live it. > > > The risks I?d be more worried about with psychedelics are a) not knowing > what you?re getting ? which could mean the dose level as well as > impurities, both factors having to do with they?re mostly being illegal ? > and b) doing something dangerous while on them ? such as deciding to walk > into traffic. The second can be mitigated by having trusted people around > to guide you. > > Regards, > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 21:06:07 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:06:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. Oh? Since when? bill w On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 3:22 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Mar 18, 2022, at 6:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? > > >?Why are you so against it? I don't really understand. Upbringing? It > seems very anti-learning? > > > > Could be early perceptions are influencing my attitude. When I was a > child, rock stars seemed to be dropping dead regularly. Judy Garland (ja I > know she wasn?t a rock star, but liked her voice), > > > Judy Garland died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using > psychedelics. > > Alan Wilson, > > > Wilson also died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using > psychedelics. > > Jimi Hendrix > > > He died from asphyxiation after using barbiturates from choking on his own > vomit. Again, not from psychedelics. > > and Janis Joplin > > > She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. > > were all in the same few weeks as I recall, Jim Morrison > > > Seems to have died of a heroin overdose too, though no autopsy was > performed. > > was a little later, Mama Cass they half-ass tried to tell us she choked > on a ham sandwich, but we suspect it was dope or perhaps heart failure. > > > Based on what? The coroner said she choked to death while eating a > sandwich in bed. Why do you believe this to be in error? Anyhow, probably > not psychedelics. > > It did seem like drugs were taking a lotta stars, > > > The drugs being barbiturates, heroin, and eating in bed ? not > psychedelics. (I?d hazard a guess alcohol and tobacco have probably done > more stars in.) > > and ja I realize acid ODs are not fatal usually but in any case, I do > admire your openness and honesty about the risks, going crazy and vast > nightmare realms. That last part has a poetic ring to it, but I would > rather read about it in a poem than live it. > > > The risks I?d be more worried about with psychedelics are a) not knowing > what you?re getting ? which could mean the dose level as well as > impurities, both factors having to do with they?re mostly being illegal ? > and b) doing something dangerous while on them ? such as deciding to walk > into traffic. The second can be mitigated by having trusted people around > to guide you. > > Regards, > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 21:16:38 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:16:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Cmon that was pretty clearly a typo. There's plenty of actual content you could have responded to instead of cherry picking an error On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 5:13 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. Oh? Since > when? bill w > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 3:22 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mar 18, 2022, at 6:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? >> >> >?Why are you so against it? I don't really understand. Upbringing? It >> seems very anti-learning? >> >> >> >> Could be early perceptions are influencing my attitude. When I was a >> child, rock stars seemed to be dropping dead regularly. Judy Garland (ja I >> know she wasn?t a rock star, but liked her voice), >> >> >> Judy Garland died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using >> psychedelics. >> >> Alan Wilson, >> >> >> Wilson also died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using >> psychedelics. >> >> Jimi Hendrix >> >> >> He died from asphyxiation after using barbiturates from choking on his >> own vomit. Again, not from psychedelics. >> >> and Janis Joplin >> >> >> She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. >> >> were all in the same few weeks as I recall, Jim Morrison >> >> >> Seems to have died of a heroin overdose too, though no autopsy was >> performed. >> >> was a little later, Mama Cass they half-ass tried to tell us she choked >> on a ham sandwich, but we suspect it was dope or perhaps heart failure. >> >> >> Based on what? The coroner said she choked to death while eating a >> sandwich in bed. Why do you believe this to be in error? Anyhow, probably >> not psychedelics. >> >> It did seem like drugs were taking a lotta stars, >> >> >> The drugs being barbiturates, heroin, and eating in bed ? not >> psychedelics. (I?d hazard a guess alcohol and tobacco have probably done >> more stars in.) >> >> and ja I realize acid ODs are not fatal usually but in any case, I do >> admire your openness and honesty about the risks, going crazy and vast >> nightmare realms. That last part has a poetic ring to it, but I would >> rather read about it in a poem than live it. >> >> >> The risks I?d be more worried about with psychedelics are a) not knowing >> what you?re getting ? which could mean the dose level as well as >> impurities, both factors having to do with they?re mostly being illegal ? >> and b) doing something dangerous while on them ? such as deciding to walk >> into traffic. The second can be mitigated by having trusted people around >> to guide you. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Apr 26 21:18:27 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:18:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: I just get the feeling, Will, that people in our group are very dubious that you have to do some drugs to understand reality or themselves. I am more than doubtful. There appears to me to be no way to test this assumption. bill w On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:08 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > There are a couple specific fake drugs you might get like 25i-NBOMe > instead of LSD but in general psychs are pretty clean. Mushrooms are > usually mushrooms, acid is usually acid, DMT is usually DMT. The latter 2 > are hypothetically easy for anyone to produce from legal items, too. > > IMO the main danger of psychedelics would be longer-term mental issues > like depression or paranoia. Usually the worst that would happen in an > extreme bad trip scenario is someone thinks they have to go to the hospital > (panic attack) and then has a shitty time there because a hospital is > probably a pretty bad place to be tripping (or worse, jail or the back of a > police car). But yeah I'd say long-term derealization/dissociation effects > are worst case. Once you see the fabric that reality is made of, things > can feel fake if you don't integrate that property. > > It's like being in Conway's Game of Life and then SEEING the entire board > and thinking "wtf, we're all just squares?!". The trick is to realize that > life and consciousness don't distinguish between substrates so it's fine to > be squares or whatever. > > Of course the squarely SQUARE squares I'm squaring off with here won't > care, for them it's neither here nor there...but if they dare to partake in > the apparently perilous fare of a 3mmx3mm^2 square of Lysergs?ure (which I > would share) then maybe they could tear through the error of seeing what > seems to be there as something (not squares,) and then be aware that we are > but squares acting and acted in a square fable reflected and refracted on a > square stage, and albeit strange they would be able and willing to pare > that silly error filling their minds, and see through the cracks and the > tears, as they reacted then they would in fact find that magic > is...[BLACKED OUT, REDACTED] ;) > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:21 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Mar 18, 2022, at 6:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? >> >> >?Why are you so against it? I don't really understand. Upbringing? It >> seems very anti-learning? >> >> >> >> Could be early perceptions are influencing my attitude. When I was a >> child, rock stars seemed to be dropping dead regularly. Judy Garland (ja I >> know she wasn?t a rock star, but liked her voice), >> >> >> Judy Garland died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using >> psychedelics. >> >> Alan Wilson, >> >> >> Wilson also died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using >> psychedelics. >> >> Jimi Hendrix >> >> >> He died from asphyxiation after using barbiturates from choking on his >> own vomit. Again, not from psychedelics. >> >> and Janis Joplin >> >> >> She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. >> >> were all in the same few weeks as I recall, Jim Morrison >> >> >> Seems to have died of a heroin overdose too, though no autopsy was >> performed. >> >> was a little later, Mama Cass they half-ass tried to tell us she choked >> on a ham sandwich, but we suspect it was dope or perhaps heart failure. >> >> >> Based on what? The coroner said she choked to death while eating a >> sandwich in bed. Why do you believe this to be in error? Anyhow, probably >> not psychedelics. >> >> It did seem like drugs were taking a lotta stars, >> >> >> The drugs being barbiturates, heroin, and eating in bed ? not >> psychedelics. (I?d hazard a guess alcohol and tobacco have probably done >> more stars in.) >> >> and ja I realize acid ODs are not fatal usually but in any case, I do >> admire your openness and honesty about the risks, going crazy and vast >> nightmare realms. That last part has a poetic ring to it, but I would >> rather read about it in a poem than live it. >> >> >> The risks I?d be more worried about with psychedelics are a) not knowing >> what you?re getting ? which could mean the dose level as well as >> impurities, both factors having to do with they?re mostly being illegal ? >> and b) doing something dangerous while on them ? such as deciding to walk >> into traffic. The second can be mitigated by having trusted people around >> to guide you. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Apr 26 21:47:27 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:47:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> <001001d859ac$0c525940$24f70bc0$@rainier66.com> <000a01d859ae$561814f0$02483ed0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003001d859b7$39a23a90$ace6afb0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat ... > >> Why not have an edit feature? > > spike > _______________________________________________ >...Because people (especially politicians) like to deny they said something. So they go back and change their tweet. Exi-chat doesn't allow posts to be edited. Only abject apologies and a new post. :) BillK _______________________________________________ Ah. But the old copy could be archived. Any changes would call attention to it and emphasize the goofy mistake. No denial possible. Most of the time it is a misspelling, but occasionally there is a howler. I like howlers. spike From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 21:52:03 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:52:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <003101d859b7$ddb280e0$991782a0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat ? >?It's like being in Conway's Game of Life and then SEEING the entire board and thinking "wtf, we're all just squares?!". That makes it sound like a bad thing. Besides? whaddya mean ?we? Kimosabe? I am the squarest square there. >?Of course the squarely SQUARE squares I'm squaring off with here won't care, for them it's neither here nor there...but if they dare to partake in the apparently perilous fare of a 3mmx3mm^2 square of Lysergs?ure (which I would share) then maybe they could tear through the error of seeing what seems to be there as something (not squares,) and then be aware that we are but squares acting and acted in a square fable reflected and refracted on a square stage, and albeit strange they would be able and willing to pare that silly error filling their minds, and see through the cracks and the tears, as they reacted then they would in fact find that magic is...[BLACKED OUT, REDACTED] ;) Will, you hide your talent under a bushel, me lad. This is good stuff. Well done indeed. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 21:55:10 2022 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:55:10 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 06:27, Colin Hales via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:14 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 1:53 AM Colin Hales wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:13 PM Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM Colin Hales >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:01 PM Jason Resch >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < >>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities of >>>>>>>> brains turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, >>>>>>>> Turing-equivalent computers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to find >>>>>>> out? Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start building >>>>>>> artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose computer >>>>>>> (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG and MEG), >>>>>>> and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose computer's model >>>>>>> of of the same tissue? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> It looks like this work is in the process of being done: >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXEuUVkDuw >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not even close. Can you see what just happened? There's a general >>>>> purpose computer and software involved. The game ends right there! Did you >>>>> not read what I wrote. >>>>> >>>>> To build an artificial version of natural tissue is not to simulate >>>>> anything. You build the EM field system literally. The use of computers is >>>>> a design tool, not the end product. The chips that do this would be 3D and >>>>> have an EEG and MEG like brain tissue. No computers. No software. >>>>> >>>>> The game has changed! >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What if the computer simulation includes the EM fields? >>>> >>>> Would that be sufficient to make a conscious program? >>>> >>>> If not, do you predict the computer simulation including the EM fields >>>> would diverge in behavior from the actual brain? >>>> >>>> Jason >>>> >>> >>> *This is exactly the right question!* >>> >>> To find out you have to do it. You do not know. I think I know, but I >>> can't claim to have proof because nobody has done the experiment yet. My >>> experimental work is at the beginning of testing a hypothesis that the real >>> EM field dynamics and the simulation's dynamics will not track, and that >>> the difference will be the non-computable aspect of brains. >>> >> >> I commend you and your work for challenging base assumptions. Such work >> is always needed in science for progress to be made. >> >> The difference, I predict, will be in how the devices relate to the >>> external world, which is something that cannot be in any model because it >>> is precisely when the external world is unknown (that nobody can program) >>> that you are interested in its response (that forms the test context of >>> interest). In the end it is about the symbol grounding problem. I have a >>> paper in review (2nd round) at the moment, in which I describe it this way: >>> ---------------- >>> The creation of chip materials able to express EM fields structurally >>> identical to those produced by neurons can be used to construct >>> artificial neurons that replicate neuron signal processing through allowing >>> the actual, natural EM fields to naturally interact in the manner they do >>> in the brain, thereby replicating the same kind of signalling and signal >>> processing (computation). This kind of in-silico empirical approach is >>> simply missing from the science. No instances of in-silico-equivalent EM >>> field replication can be found. Artificial neurons created this way could >>> help in understanding EM field expression by excitable cell tissue. It >>> would also facilitate a novel way to test hypotheses in-silico. >>> >> >> What is the easiest way to test this theory of EMs role in consciousness >> or intelligence? >> >> Would you consider the creation of an artificial neural network that >> exhibits intelligent or novel behavior to be a disproof of this EM theory? >> >> Neuroscience and physics, together, could embark on such a development. >>> It would help us reveal the neural dynamics and signal processing that is >>> unknowingly not captured by the familiar models that abstract-away EM >>> fields and that currently dominate computational neuroscience. *Note >>> that the computational exploration of the EM fields (via Maxwell?s >>> equations) impressed on space by the novel chip would constitute the design >>> phase of the chip. The design would be sent to a foundry to build. What >>> comes back from the foundry would express the EM fields themselves. The >>> empirical method would be, to neuroscience, what the Wright Brothers >>> construction of flying craft did for artificial flight.* >>> ----------------- >>> The flight analogy is a strong one. Simulation of flight physics is not >>> flight. >>> >> >> I see this argument a lot but I think it ignores the all important role >> of the perspective in question. >> >> For a being in the simulation of flight, it is flight. If we include an >> observer in the simulation of a rainstorm, they will get wet. >> >> That our hypothetical simulators see only a computer humming along and no >> water leaking out of their computer says nothing of the experiences and >> goings-on for the perspective inside the simulation. >> >> As consciousness is all about perspectives and inside views, changing the >> view to focus on the outside is potentially misleading. I could >> equivalently say, "A person dreaming of a sunrise sees a yellow sun full of >> brilliant light, but the room is still pitch dark!" But the darkness of the >> room doesn't tell me anything about whatever experiences the dreaming brain >> could be having. >> >> I think it's the same with computer simulations. There's an external view >> and an internal view. Each tells very little about the other. >> >> >> I predict that in exactly the same way, in the appropriate context >>> (novelty), that a simulation of 'braining' will not be a brain (in a manner >>> to be discovered). The reason, I predict, is that the information content >>> in the EM field is far larger than anything found in the peripheral >>> measurement signals hooked to it. The chip that does the fields, I predict, >>> will handle novelty in a way that parts company with the simulation that >>> designed the chip. The chip's behaviour (choices) will be different to the >>> simulation. >>> >> >> I do think that given the chaotic nature of a large and highly complex >> system where small changes can be magnified, anything not modeled in a >> brain simulation can lead to divergent behaviors. The question to me is how >> important those unsimulated aspects are to the fidelity of the mind. Is it >> all important to the extent the mind is inoperable without including it, or >> is it something that makes a difference in behavior only after a >> significantly long run? (Or is it something in between those two extremes?) >> >> >>> The grand assumption of equivalence of "brain" and "computed model of >>> brain" is and has only ever been an assumption, and the testing that >>> determines the equivalence has never been done. >>> >> >> I agree with you that it should be. >> >> You do not find out by assuming the equivalence and never actually >>> testing it with a proper control (null hypothesis). Especially when the >>> very thing that defines the grand failure of AI is when it encounters >>> novelty ... which is exactly what has been happening for 65 years non-stop. >>> >> >> I am not sure I would say AI has failed here. >> >> Take for example, my AI bots. They encountered novelty when I changed >> their environment repeatedly, and each time they responded by developing >> new more optimum strategies to cope with those changes. >> >> Jason >> ____________ > > > If you read the article I posted, you will find the state of affairs that > you are projecting into simulation is called 'magical' or radical/strong > emergence. Proving true/false what you are projecting into simulation is > precisely the final outcome that a proper science of EM-based subjectivity > will sort out. My prediction is that none of the things you expect will > happen because the EM fields are organized incorrectly. They are organized > in the form of a computer. Everything that the brain does to organize > subjectivity is lost. > > So I guess we'll just have to wait till the science gets done properly. > Only then will you know whether any of your expectations are valid. > It?s a given that the computer is not the same as whatever it is simulating, but are you saying that the effect of EM fields on matter cannot be simulated? > -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 23:35:07 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:35:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] New EU Digital Services Act Message-ID: On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 at 20:24, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > OK then. If Twitter was allowed to operate in Europe before, is there any reason to think it shouldn't be allowed to operate with all the same rules as before but with those rules public? > > spike > _______________________________________________ The EU official was referring to the new Digital Services Act that all the EU members have just agreed to last weekend. So the old rules won't apply. The new DSA is intended to control the giant social networks. Quotes: Digital Services Act: The EU?s strict new rules for online content by Elaine Burke 25 April 2022 What counts as illegal content? The illegal content targeted under the DSA is broad and sweeping. It includes hate speech, child sexual abuse material, scams, non-consensual sharing of private images, promotion of terrorism, the sale of counterfeit or unsafe products and copyright infringement. Is there more to it than illegal content? Yes, much more. Very large platforms need to be able to monitor and manage any harmful content, which includes disinformation. Platforms are also going to have to ensure their interfaces don?t intentionally mislead users using what the European Parliament calls ?dark patterns?. These tricks of UI include manipulative ?nudge tactics? such as giving more prominence to certain buttons or links that will lead users to opt in to something, while obscuring the steps to opt out. According to the Digital Services Act, cancelling a subscription should be as easy as subscribing. What about targeted content? Remarkably, the EU is also demanding access to platforms? recommendations engines to ensure algorithmic accountability and transparency. The algorithms that recommend content to users are very much the secret sauce of online platforms and not something they will be keen to expose. (Though advocates for ?explainable AI? argue that this makes systems more trustworthy and could drive innovation.) On the users? side, platforms will have to offer the option to switch off any profiling used for recommendations. Ad targeting also takes a hit under these rules. Users are to be given more control over the advertising they are exposed to while targeting users based on sensitive information such as religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation is now prohibited. When it comes to children, all ad targeting is effectively banned. In fact, where platforms are aware of users that are minors, they will be required to have special protection measures in place. ----------------- The DSA seems to be a pretty determined effort to get the big social networks to behave more responsibly and make sure they are not damaging their millions of customers. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Tue Apr 26 23:40:31 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:40:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> <001001d859ac$0c525940$24f70bc0$@rainier66.com> <000a01d859ae$561814f0$02483ed0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000401d859c7$04c36d70$0e4a4850$@rainier66.com> .> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat . > >.Spike inquired: >>. Why not have an edit feature? spike > _______________________________________________ >.Because people (especially politicians) like to deny they said something. So they go back and change their tweet. Exi-chat doesn't allow posts to be edited. Only abject apologies and a new post. :) BillK _______________________________________________ Oh, ja. I see what you mean. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 25699 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Apr 26 23:44:46 2022 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 19:44:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: <003101d859b7$ddb280e0$991782a0$@rainier66.com> References: <011201d83b32$d3c7a630$7b56f290$@rainier66.com> <6B32393D-FBC3-4DCF-92B1-22777E7FBEB5@gmail.com> <003101d859b7$ddb280e0$991782a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Thanks spike, I do appreciate it. I write more 'serious' poems mostly but sometimes it is nice to do something silly. Here's one that is fully a palindrome from start to end (not line by line): Knee's Nun. I peer; can I spot ?er? Ew, Ma?! I...he...you? Oy. Sad, alas. A tin. I?I'm at a pun. I am. Odd domain. Up? at? Am I In it, as a lad? As...you? O? Yeh? I am?we're?Top sin. A'creepin'. Unseen, k? On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 5:54 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Will Steinberg via extropy-chat > *?* > > > > >?It's like being in Conway's Game of Life and then SEEING the entire > board and thinking "wtf, we're all just squares?!". > > > > That makes it sound like a bad thing. Besides? whaddya mean ?we? > Kimosabe? I am the squarest square there. > > > > >?Of course the squarely SQUARE squares I'm squaring off with here won't > care, for them it's neither here nor there...but if they dare to partake in > the apparently perilous fare of a 3mmx3mm^2 square of Lysergs?ure (which I > would share) then maybe they could tear through the error of seeing what > seems to be there as something (not squares,) and then be aware that we are > but squares acting and acted in a square fable reflected and refracted on a > square stage, and albeit strange they would be able and willing to pare > that silly error filling their minds, and see through the cracks and the > tears, as they reacted then they would in fact find that magic > is...[BLACKED OUT, REDACTED] ;) > > > > > > Will, you hide your talent under a bushel, me lad. This is good stuff. > Well done indeed. > > > > 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 Wed Apr 27 00:03:46 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 19:03:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I may be just as square as Spike, excepting the weed. What keeps me from any LSD or such is the fact that I am about halfway to being manic-depressive. If the drug exaggerbates either tendency, esp. depression, I would have a terrible trip and might even contemplate suicide. Not for me. bill w On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:17 AM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > numerous substituted indoles/tryptamines and substituted phenethylamines. > 4-AcO-DMT or 2C-B for example > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 11:39 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> https://neurosciencenews.com/psychedelics-conscious-awareness-20203/ >> >> Which ones am I missing out on? >> >> bill w >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 27 00:31:02 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:31:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004601d859ce$13c014c0$3b403e40$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? >?I may be just as square as Spike? Hey cool, let?s have a contest. What events should we include in the Squareness Olympiad? >?excepting the weed? HAH! I start with the advantage! Smoking ?weed? is a real hipster thing, ?man.? It is ?far out? and ?groovy? as the hippies say. >?What keeps me from any LSD or such is the fact that I am about halfway to being manic-depressive. If the drug exaggerbates either tendency, esp. depression, I would have a terrible trip and might even contemplate suicide. Not for me. bill w Oy vey. Billw, I am one of the lucky ones, the opposite of manic-depressive. I call it manic-elative. But think about it: gratitude is a powerful emotion, and powerful emotions generate powerful endorphins. Sure, I know it is trite, but that doesn?t mean it isn?t true: count your blessings, me lad. All of us, count our freaking blessings. Think back on all the places we coulda been born and all the times we coulda been born, compare that to here and now. Are you hungry right now? Why is that please? Why is there food in your refrigerator right now and why do you have a refrigerator right now? And why do you not worry that it will still be running in the morning please? Why is it that you do not hear someone going by with a cart, calling ?Bring out your dead! Bring out your dead!? Heh, funny that, but not really. It?s a pandemic, ja? But did we ever hear that sound, and why not? Those of us who have lived long, have we ever heard that sound? How many of us know of polio as anything other than a shot we had in elementary school? Owww, why do we need to do this, we whined? Why did we not know that please? How many of us here concerned themselves that an invading army would attack and destroy our town? Why is that? Those younger, do you remember the days before computers and internet? Billw and I do, several of us here do. Sheesh, look at what is right in front of you right now. Is it 40 columns of grainy text with a blinking cursor? No? Why is it not 40 columns of grainy text with a blinking cursor? My friends, I don?t mean to harangue you. Oh wait, retract, I do, but it isn?t because I don?t love yas. It?s because we are absurdly lucky, all of us. We are all lucky sonsa bitches. We are well-fed, warm, dry, safe, well informed, we are never bored because of that electronic device you are gazing at riiiiight noooowwww. Think on these things please. Gratitude is a powerful emotion. So feel it. Live it. Get high on that. It?s free. It?s legal. It?s healthy. It?s even advisable. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 01:09:27 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:09:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 26, 2022, at 8:58 AM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > Gene Krupa was addicted to heroin and insisted that he played better under it. So someone challenged him: tape a session with and without heroin. He admitted that he played better straight. > > I played a variety of instruments but never wanted to do them under the influence. You can put lipstick on a pig............ The main thing I?ve seen with people performing under the influence is their impaired judgment. They tend to think they?re performing better but are actually performing worse. That said, I wouldn?t expect otherwise. And heroin is not usually classed as a psychedelic. But I would look not for immediate improvements in performance, but for improvements in other things like in emotional/psychological problems. I?m not saying there are any, but that seems a better motivation for using them than playing chess or the cello better. > I want to hear great music played by great performers. And I do.There are 1500 male grandmasters and 40 female ones. Can we say that men are better at spatial things? Yes - we are very spacial. bill w I would challenge that: that men are inherently better at spatial. After all, girls are usually raised not to do spatial things, whereas boys are. So years and years of encouraging boys to do X and _discouraging_ girls to do X (or vice versa) plus stereotype threat (meaning most kids tend to conform to pressures to perform certain stereotypical roles: the boy actively discouraged from, say, playing with dolls from the time he?s a toddler) and the like skews the adult data. You shouldn?t actively promote certain roles on almost all children for decades or centuries and then expect equal outcomes, no? Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 01:35:49 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:35:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did I use the (fraught) term ?narcotic?? No. I used ?psychedelic.? Typically, heroin is not classed as a psychedelic and no one seems to use heroin for a psychedelic experience to my knowledge. To wit, Spike in a discussion of psychedelics listed a bunch of celebrity deaths which seemed to have nothing to do with psychedelics. In fact, they had mostly to do with heroin. Not that his short list tells us much beyond the impression the deaths made on him growing up. (Availability bias strikes again, no? I don?t know the data on celebrity deaths, but I bet alcohol and tobacco beats illegal drugs ? though probably because they?re more readily available, cheaper, and don?t have the sane social stigma. Then again, psychedelics don?t seem to directly cause deaths (from overdose), so were they more widely to be had at a low price and decent quality and didn?t have social stigma, I?m not sure you?d see headlines about celebrities dying from LSD overdose. Heroin, maybe, but again, that?s not a psychedelic in my understanding.) Regards, Dan > On Apr 26, 2022, at 2:14 PM, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > ? > She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. Oh? Since when? bill w > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 3:22 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: >>> On Mar 18, 2022, at 6:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >>> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >>> Subject: Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? >>> >>> >?Why are you so against it? I don't really understand. Upbringing? It seems very anti-learning? >>> >>> >>> >>> Could be early perceptions are influencing my attitude. When I was a child, rock stars seemed to be dropping dead regularly. Judy Garland (ja I know she wasn?t a rock star, but liked her voice), >>> >> >> Judy Garland died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using psychedelics. >> >>> Alan Wilson, >>> >> >> Wilson also died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using psychedelics. >> >>> Jimi Hendrix >>> >> >> He died from asphyxiation after using barbiturates from choking on his own vomit. Again, not from psychedelics. >> >>> and Janis Joplin >>> >> >> She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. >> >>> were all in the same few weeks as I recall, Jim Morrison >>> >> >> Seems to have died of a heroin overdose too, though no autopsy was performed. >> >>> was a little later, Mama Cass they half-ass tried to tell us she choked on a ham sandwich, but we suspect it was dope or perhaps heart failure. >>> >> >> Based on what? The coroner said she choked to death while eating a sandwich in bed. Why do you believe this to be in error? Anyhow, probably not psychedelics. >> >>> It did seem like drugs were taking a lotta stars, >>> >> >> The drugs being barbiturates, heroin, and eating in bed ? not psychedelics. (I?d hazard a guess alcohol and tobacco have probably done more stars in.) >> >>> and ja I realize acid ODs are not fatal usually but in any case, I do admire your openness and honesty about the risks, going crazy and vast nightmare realms. That last part has a poetic ring to it, but I would rather read about it in a poem than live it. >>> >> >> The risks I?d be more worried about with psychedelics are a) not knowing what you?re getting ? which could mean the dose level as well as impurities, both factors having to do with they?re mostly being illegal ? and b) doing something dangerous while on them ? such as deciding to walk into traffic. The second can be mitigated by having trusted people around to guide you. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 01:37:43 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 18:37:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ah, my mistake. Don?t know why I typed that. Sorry about that. And it was most barbiturates that killed the folks Spike listed ? not heroin. ;) Regards, Dan > On Apr 26, 2022, at 2:19 PM, Will Steinberg via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > Cmon that was pretty clearly a typo. There's plenty of actual content you could have responded to instead of cherry picking an error > >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 5:13 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: >> She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. Oh? Since when? bill w >> >>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 3:22 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> On Mar 18, 2022, at 6:50 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Will Steinberg via extropy-chat >>>> Subject: Re: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? >>>> >>>> >?Why are you so against it? I don't really understand. Upbringing? It seems very anti-learning? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Could be early perceptions are influencing my attitude. When I was a child, rock stars seemed to be dropping dead regularly. Judy Garland (ja I know she wasn?t a rock star, but liked her voice), >>>> >>> >>> Judy Garland died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using psychedelics. >>> >>>> Alan Wilson, >>>> >>> >>> Wilson also died from a barbiturate overdose ? not from using psychedelics. >>> >>>> Jimi Hendrix >>>> >>> >>> He died from asphyxiation after using barbiturates from choking on his own vomit. Again, not from psychedelics. >>> >>>> and Janis Joplin >>>> >>> >>> She died from a heroin overdose. Again, not a narcotic. >>> >>>> were all in the same few weeks as I recall, Jim Morrison >>>> >>> >>> Seems to have died of a heroin overdose too, though no autopsy was performed. >>> >>>> was a little later, Mama Cass they half-ass tried to tell us she choked on a ham sandwich, but we suspect it was dope or perhaps heart failure. >>>> >>> >>> Based on what? The coroner said she choked to death while eating a sandwich in bed. Why do you believe this to be in error? Anyhow, probably not psychedelics. >>> >>>> It did seem like drugs were taking a lotta stars, >>>> >>> >>> The drugs being barbiturates, heroin, and eating in bed ? not psychedelics. (I?d hazard a guess alcohol and tobacco have probably done more stars in.) >>> >>>> and ja I realize acid ODs are not fatal usually but in any case, I do admire your openness and honesty about the risks, going crazy and vast nightmare realms. That last part has a poetic ring to it, but I would rather read about it in a poem than live it. >>>> >>> >>> The risks I?d be more worried about with psychedelics are a) not knowing what you?re getting ? which could mean the dose level as well as impurities, both factors having to do with they?re mostly being illegal ? and b) doing something dangerous while on them ? such as deciding to walk into traffic. The second can be mitigated by having trusted people around to guide you. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dan > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 02:15:24 2022 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:15:24 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 11:27 AM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 11:08, Colin Hales wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 10:55 AM StathinoNos Papaioannou < >> stathisp at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 09:18, Colin Hales wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 7:55 AM Stathis Papaioannou >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 06:27, Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:14 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < >>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 1:53 AM Colin Hales >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:13 PM Jason Resch >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM Colin Hales >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:01 PM Jason Resch >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>>>>>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via >>>>>>>>>>>> extropy-chat wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities >>>>>>>>>>>>> of brains turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing-equivalent computers. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafal >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to >>>>>>>>>>>> find out? Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start >>>>>>>>>>>> building artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose >>>>>>>>>>>> computer (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG >>>>>>>>>>>> and MEG), and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose >>>>>>>>>>>> computer's model of of the same tissue? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It looks like this work is in the process of being done: >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXEuUVkDuw >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not even close. Can you see what just happened? There's a general >>>>>>>>>> purpose computer and software involved. The game ends right there! Did you >>>>>>>>>> not read what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To build an artificial version of natural tissue is not to >>>>>>>>>> simulate anything. You build the EM field system literally. The use of >>>>>>>>>> computers is a design tool, not the end product. The chips that do this >>>>>>>>>> would be 3D and have an EEG and MEG like brain tissue. No computers. No >>>>>>>>>> software. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The game has changed! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What if the computer simulation includes the EM fields? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would that be sufficient to make a conscious program? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If not, do you predict the computer simulation including the EM >>>>>>>>> fields would diverge in behavior from the actual brain? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *This is exactly the right question!* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To find out you have to do it. You do not know. I think I know, but >>>>>>>> I can't claim to have proof because nobody has done the experiment yet. My >>>>>>>> experimental work is at the beginning of testing a hypothesis that the real >>>>>>>> EM field dynamics and the simulation's dynamics will not track, and that >>>>>>>> the difference will be the non-computable aspect of brains. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I commend you and your work for challenging base assumptions. Such >>>>>>> work is always needed in science for progress to be made. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The difference, I predict, will be in how the devices relate to the >>>>>>>> external world, which is something that cannot be in any model because it >>>>>>>> is precisely when the external world is unknown (that nobody can program) >>>>>>>> that you are interested in its response (that forms the test context of >>>>>>>> interest). In the end it is about the symbol grounding problem. I have a >>>>>>>> paper in review (2nd round) at the moment, in which I describe it this way: >>>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>>> The creation of chip materials able to express EM fields >>>>>>>> structurally identical to those produced by neurons can be used to >>>>>>>> construct artificial neurons that replicate neuron signal processing >>>>>>>> through allowing the actual, natural EM fields to naturally interact in the >>>>>>>> manner they do in the brain, thereby replicating the same kind of >>>>>>>> signalling and signal processing (computation). This kind of in-silico >>>>>>>> empirical approach is simply missing from the science. No instances of >>>>>>>> in-silico-equivalent EM field replication can be found. Artificial neurons >>>>>>>> created this way could help in understanding EM field expression by >>>>>>>> excitable cell tissue. It would also facilitate a novel way to test >>>>>>>> hypotheses in-silico. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the easiest way to test this theory of EMs role in >>>>>>> consciousness or intelligence? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Would you consider the creation of an artificial neural network that >>>>>>> exhibits intelligent or novel behavior to be a disproof of this EM theory? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Neuroscience and physics, together, could embark on such a >>>>>>>> development. It would help us reveal the neural dynamics and signal >>>>>>>> processing that is unknowingly not captured by the familiar models that >>>>>>>> abstract-away EM fields and that currently dominate computational >>>>>>>> neuroscience. *Note that the computational exploration of the EM >>>>>>>> fields (via Maxwell?s equations) impressed on space by the novel chip would >>>>>>>> constitute the design phase of the chip. The design would be sent to a >>>>>>>> foundry to build. What comes back from the foundry would express the EM >>>>>>>> fields themselves. The empirical method would be, to neuroscience, what the >>>>>>>> Wright Brothers construction of flying craft did for artificial flight.* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>> The flight analogy is a strong one. Simulation of flight physics is >>>>>>>> not flight. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see this argument a lot but I think it ignores the all important >>>>>>> role of the perspective in question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a being in the simulation of flight, it is flight. If we include >>>>>>> an observer in the simulation of a rainstorm, they will get wet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That our hypothetical simulators see only a computer humming along >>>>>>> and no water leaking out of their computer says nothing of the experiences >>>>>>> and goings-on for the perspective inside the simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As consciousness is all about perspectives and inside views, >>>>>>> changing the view to focus on the outside is potentially misleading. I >>>>>>> could equivalently say, "A person dreaming of a sunrise sees a yellow sun >>>>>>> full of brilliant light, but the room is still pitch dark!" But the >>>>>>> darkness of the room doesn't tell me anything about whatever experiences >>>>>>> the dreaming brain could be having. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's the same with computer simulations. There's an external >>>>>>> view and an internal view. Each tells very little about the other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I predict that in exactly the same way, in the appropriate context >>>>>>>> (novelty), that a simulation of 'braining' will not be a brain (in a manner >>>>>>>> to be discovered). The reason, I predict, is that the information content >>>>>>>> in the EM field is far larger than anything found in the peripheral >>>>>>>> measurement signals hooked to it. The chip that does the fields, I predict, >>>>>>>> will handle novelty in a way that parts company with the simulation that >>>>>>>> designed the chip. The chip's behaviour (choices) will be different to the >>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do think that given the chaotic nature of a large and highly >>>>>>> complex system where small changes can be magnified, anything not modeled >>>>>>> in a brain simulation can lead to divergent behaviors. The question to me >>>>>>> is how important those unsimulated aspects are to the fidelity of the mind. >>>>>>> Is it all important to the extent the mind is inoperable without including >>>>>>> it, or is it something that makes a difference in behavior only after a >>>>>>> significantly long run? (Or is it something in between those two extremes?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The grand assumption of equivalence of "brain" and "computed model >>>>>>>> of brain" is and has only ever been an assumption, and the testing that >>>>>>>> determines the equivalence has never been done. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with you that it should be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You do not find out by assuming the equivalence and never actually >>>>>>>> testing it with a proper control (null hypothesis). Especially when the >>>>>>>> very thing that defines the grand failure of AI is when it encounters >>>>>>>> novelty ... which is exactly what has been happening for 65 years non-stop. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not sure I would say AI has failed here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Take for example, my AI bots. They encountered novelty when I >>>>>>> changed their environment repeatedly, and each time they responded by >>>>>>> developing new more optimum strategies to cope with those changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>> ____________ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you read the article I posted, you will find the state of affairs >>>>>> that you are projecting into simulation is called 'magical' or >>>>>> radical/strong emergence. Proving true/false what you are projecting into >>>>>> simulation is precisely the final outcome that a proper science of EM-based >>>>>> subjectivity will sort out. My prediction is that none of the things you >>>>>> expect will happen because the EM fields are organized incorrectly. They >>>>>> are organized in the form of a computer. Everything that the brain does to >>>>>> organize subjectivity is lost. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I guess we'll just have to wait till the science gets done >>>>>> properly. Only then will you know whether any of your expectations are >>>>>> valid. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It?s a given that the computer is not the same as whatever it is >>>>> simulating, but are you saying that the effect of EM fields on matter >>>>> cannot be simulated? >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>> >>>> >>>> In the extraordinary context of a braIn, that the standard model of >>>> particle physics tells us is 100% EM field from the atomic level up ... is >>>> where we have the only instance of a proved 1st-person perspective. That >>>> is, 'being' the particular EM field system that literally 'is' a brain, >>>> involves contact with information content of the EM field system (the >>>> 1st-person perspective itself) that appears to have a vast amount of innate >>>> information in it that involves the external world. That information >>>> content, or access to it, *is not in any of Maxwell's equations *and >>>> is degenerately (non-uniquely, irresolvably) related to any of the >>>> physical input/output signals. So ... No: Not Turing Computable. To explore >>>> it you need to replicate the physics itself to test this as a hypothesis, >>>> not simulate. The test context that sorts it out is the very context where >>>> all AI/AGI fails: where the system encounters something it has never >>>> encountered before. In that state, the computer simulaiton and the hardware >>>> (field) replication would part company in interesting ways. >>>> >>>> The only way Maxwell's equations could somehow deliver all the >>>> information is if you simulate the entire external world as well, which you >>>> can't because you don't have all the information. >>>> >>>> Overall....I am saying that the science that would prove what everybody >>>> is assuming for 65 years involves using hardware that is not a general >>>> purpose computer. AGI's future is critically dependent on that science >>>> being done and it has not been done. >>>> >>>> Does that make sense? >>>> >>> >>> So are you saying that it would be possible in theory to calculate the >>> trajectory of calcium atoms in a lump of marble but not calcium atoms in my >>> big toe? >>> >>>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> >> >> Not at all. The marble and the big toe are EM field systems. But >> >> 1) they are not organized the way a brain's EM is organized >> 2) unlike the brain there is no 1st person perspective for either marble >> or toe (the toe's apparent 1PP is projected by the brain onto the toe). >> >> The ions are not the field system. They generate a field system and carry >> it around. >> > > A human can communicate with their big toe, so if it is possible to > calculate the trajectory of calcium atoms in the bones of the big toe, it > is possible to replicate human intelligence. We don?t need to say that the > toe is conscious, we just need to know how the calcium atoms in the distal > phalanx of the big toe move. Are you saying that the forces on those atoms > are fundamentally different from the forces on calcium atoms elsewhere? > >> -- > Stathis Papaioannou > No. What you are saying is both right and irrelevant. Brain's use information encode in the field system, which is degenerately related to the position of ions. Stop talking about ion positions and start talking about "what it is like to BE ions. If you cannot see the problem space, then this discussion cannot progress anywhere. The information content in the total, emergent field system (not just their ionic charge source locations) is what I am talking about. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 02:57:32 2022 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:57:32 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you know the Lorentz force on the ion in the big toe, the trajectory can be computed. So what? If the ion is in the brain, with massive molecular dynamics simulation, you can computer the trajectory and be right. so what? I am talking about the behavioural dynamics of a complete field system, which as a massive summation of the field system impressed on space by billions of charges. But even if you did that..... So what? . I am talking about the subjective view of 'being' that total field system, which is what created in a brain. To explore this you have to physically replicate the field system. The standard model of particle physics (Maxwell's) has ZERO content on the1PP. How this information content is erected is a mystery. To explore it you build the fields. You don't simulate their outward appearance. On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 12:36 PM Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 12:15, Colin Hales wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 11:27 AM Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 11:08, Colin Hales wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 10:55 AM StathinoNos Papaioannou < >>>> stathisp at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 09:18, Colin Hales wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 7:55 AM Stathis Papaioannou < >>>>>> stathisp at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 06:27, Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 10:14 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < >>>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022, 1:53 AM Colin Hales >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:13 PM Jason Resch >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:09 PM Colin Hales < >>>>>>>>>>> col.hales at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 2:01 PM Jason Resch < >>>>>>>>>>>> jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:54 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>>>>>>>>>>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via >>>>>>>>>>>>>> extropy-chat wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ### I would be very surprised if the functional capabilities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of brains turned out to be impossible to replicate in digital, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing-equivalent computers. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rafal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be great to actually do some empirical science to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> find out? Like start acting as if it was true (impossible) and start >>>>>>>>>>>>>> building artificial inorganic brain tissue that is NOT a general-purpose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer (that artificial tissue would also have functionally relevant EEG >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and MEG), and then comparing its behaviour with the general-purpose >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer's model of of the same tissue? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It looks like this work is in the process of being done: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldXEuUVkDuw >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not even close. Can you see what just happened? There's a >>>>>>>>>>>> general purpose computer and software involved. The game ends right there! >>>>>>>>>>>> Did you not read what I wrote. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To build an artificial version of natural tissue is not to >>>>>>>>>>>> simulate anything. You build the EM field system literally. The use of >>>>>>>>>>>> computers is a design tool, not the end product. The chips that do this >>>>>>>>>>>> would be 3D and have an EEG and MEG like brain tissue. No computers. No >>>>>>>>>>>> software. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The game has changed! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What if the computer simulation includes the EM fields? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Would that be sufficient to make a conscious program? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If not, do you predict the computer simulation including the EM >>>>>>>>>>> fields would diverge in behavior from the actual brain? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *This is exactly the right question!* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To find out you have to do it. You do not know. I think I know, >>>>>>>>>> but I can't claim to have proof because nobody has done the experiment yet. >>>>>>>>>> My experimental work is at the beginning of testing a hypothesis that the >>>>>>>>>> real EM field dynamics and the simulation's dynamics will not track, and >>>>>>>>>> that the difference will be the non-computable aspect of brains. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I commend you and your work for challenging base assumptions. Such >>>>>>>>> work is always needed in science for progress to be made. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The difference, I predict, will be in how the devices relate to >>>>>>>>>> the external world, which is something that cannot be in any model because >>>>>>>>>> it is precisely when the external world is unknown (that nobody can >>>>>>>>>> program) that you are interested in its response (that forms the test >>>>>>>>>> context of interest). In the end it is about the symbol grounding problem. >>>>>>>>>> I have a paper in review (2nd round) at the moment, in which I describe it >>>>>>>>>> this way: >>>>>>>>>> ---------------- >>>>>>>>>> The creation of chip materials able to express EM fields >>>>>>>>>> structurally identical to those produced by neurons can be used >>>>>>>>>> to construct artificial neurons that replicate neuron signal processing >>>>>>>>>> through allowing the actual, natural EM fields to naturally interact in the >>>>>>>>>> manner they do in the brain, thereby replicating the same kind of >>>>>>>>>> signalling and signal processing (computation). This kind of in-silico >>>>>>>>>> empirical approach is simply missing from the science. No instances of >>>>>>>>>> in-silico-equivalent EM field replication can be found. Artificial neurons >>>>>>>>>> created this way could help in understanding EM field expression by >>>>>>>>>> excitable cell tissue. It would also facilitate a novel way to test >>>>>>>>>> hypotheses in-silico. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What is the easiest way to test this theory of EMs role in >>>>>>>>> consciousness or intelligence? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Would you consider the creation of an artificial neural network >>>>>>>>> that exhibits intelligent or novel behavior to be a disproof of this EM >>>>>>>>> theory? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Neuroscience and physics, together, could embark on such a >>>>>>>>>> development. It would help us reveal the neural dynamics and signal >>>>>>>>>> processing that is unknowingly not captured by the familiar models that >>>>>>>>>> abstract-away EM fields and that currently dominate computational >>>>>>>>>> neuroscience. *Note that the computational exploration of the EM >>>>>>>>>> fields (via Maxwell?s equations) impressed on space by the novel chip would >>>>>>>>>> constitute the design phase of the chip. The design would be sent to a >>>>>>>>>> foundry to build. What comes back from the foundry would express the EM >>>>>>>>>> fields themselves. The empirical method would be, to neuroscience, what the >>>>>>>>>> Wright Brothers construction of flying craft did for artificial flight.* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>>>>>> The flight analogy is a strong one. Simulation of flight physics >>>>>>>>>> is not flight. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see this argument a lot but I think it ignores the all important >>>>>>>>> role of the perspective in question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For a being in the simulation of flight, it is flight. If we >>>>>>>>> include an observer in the simulation of a rainstorm, they will get wet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That our hypothetical simulators see only a computer humming along >>>>>>>>> and no water leaking out of their computer says nothing of the experiences >>>>>>>>> and goings-on for the perspective inside the simulation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As consciousness is all about perspectives and inside views, >>>>>>>>> changing the view to focus on the outside is potentially misleading. I >>>>>>>>> could equivalently say, "A person dreaming of a sunrise sees a yellow sun >>>>>>>>> full of brilliant light, but the room is still pitch dark!" But the >>>>>>>>> darkness of the room doesn't tell me anything about whatever experiences >>>>>>>>> the dreaming brain could be having. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it's the same with computer simulations. There's an >>>>>>>>> external view and an internal view. Each tells very little about the other. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I predict that in exactly the same way, in the appropriate context >>>>>>>>>> (novelty), that a simulation of 'braining' will not be a brain (in a manner >>>>>>>>>> to be discovered). The reason, I predict, is that the information content >>>>>>>>>> in the EM field is far larger than anything found in the peripheral >>>>>>>>>> measurement signals hooked to it. The chip that does the fields, I predict, >>>>>>>>>> will handle novelty in a way that parts company with the simulation that >>>>>>>>>> designed the chip. The chip's behaviour (choices) will be different to the >>>>>>>>>> simulation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I do think that given the chaotic nature of a large and highly >>>>>>>>> complex system where small changes can be magnified, anything not modeled >>>>>>>>> in a brain simulation can lead to divergent behaviors. The question to me >>>>>>>>> is how important those unsimulated aspects are to the fidelity of the mind. >>>>>>>>> Is it all important to the extent the mind is inoperable without including >>>>>>>>> it, or is it something that makes a difference in behavior only after a >>>>>>>>> significantly long run? (Or is it something in between those two extremes?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The grand assumption of equivalence of "brain" and "computed >>>>>>>>>> model of brain" is and has only ever been an assumption, and the testing >>>>>>>>>> that determines the equivalence has never been done. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with you that it should be. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You do not find out by assuming the equivalence and never actually >>>>>>>>>> testing it with a proper control (null hypothesis). Especially when the >>>>>>>>>> very thing that defines the grand failure of AI is when it encounters >>>>>>>>>> novelty ... which is exactly what has been happening for 65 years non-stop. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am not sure I would say AI has failed here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Take for example, my AI bots. They encountered novelty when I >>>>>>>>> changed their environment repeatedly, and each time they responded by >>>>>>>>> developing new more optimum strategies to cope with those changes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jason >>>>>>>>> ____________ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you read the article I posted, you will find the state of >>>>>>>> affairs that you are projecting into simulation is called 'magical' or >>>>>>>> radical/strong emergence. Proving true/false what you are projecting into >>>>>>>> simulation is precisely the final outcome that a proper science of EM-based >>>>>>>> subjectivity will sort out. My prediction is that none of the things you >>>>>>>> expect will happen because the EM fields are organized incorrectly. They >>>>>>>> are organized in the form of a computer. Everything that the brain does to >>>>>>>> organize subjectivity is lost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I guess we'll just have to wait till the science gets done >>>>>>>> properly. Only then will you know whether any of your expectations are >>>>>>>> valid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It?s a given that the computer is not the same as whatever it is >>>>>>> simulating, but are you saying that the effect of EM fields on matter >>>>>>> cannot be simulated? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the extraordinary context of a braIn, that the standard model of >>>>>> particle physics tells us is 100% EM field from the atomic level up ... is >>>>>> where we have the only instance of a proved 1st-person perspective. That >>>>>> is, 'being' the particular EM field system that literally 'is' a brain, >>>>>> involves contact with information content of the EM field system (the >>>>>> 1st-person perspective itself) that appears to have a vast amount of innate >>>>>> information in it that involves the external world. That information >>>>>> content, or access to it, *is not in any of Maxwell's equations *and >>>>>> is degenerately (non-uniquely, irresolvably) related to any of the >>>>>> physical input/output signals. So ... No: Not Turing Computable. To explore >>>>>> it you need to replicate the physics itself to test this as a hypothesis, >>>>>> not simulate. The test context that sorts it out is the very context where >>>>>> all AI/AGI fails: where the system encounters something it has never >>>>>> encountered before. In that state, the computer simulaiton and the hardware >>>>>> (field) replication would part company in interesting ways. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only way Maxwell's equations could somehow deliver all the >>>>>> information is if you simulate the entire external world as well, which you >>>>>> can't because you don't have all the information. >>>>>> >>>>>> Overall....I am saying that the science that would prove what >>>>>> everybody is assuming for 65 years involves using hardware that is not a >>>>>> general purpose computer. AGI's future is critically dependent on that >>>>>> science being done and it has not been done. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does that make sense? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So are you saying that it would be possible in theory to calculate the >>>>> trajectory of calcium atoms in a lump of marble but not calcium atoms in my >>>>> big toe? >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> Stathis Papaioannou >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not at all. The marble and the big toe are EM field systems. But >>>> >>>> 1) they are not organized the way a brain's EM is organized >>>> 2) unlike the brain there is no 1st person perspective for either >>>> marble or toe (the toe's apparent 1PP is projected by the brain onto the >>>> toe). >>>> >>>> The ions are not the field system. They generate a field system and >>>> carry it around. >>>> >>> >>> A human can communicate with their big toe, so if it is possible to >>> calculate the trajectory of calcium atoms in the bones of the big toe, it >>> is possible to replicate human intelligence. We don?t need to say that the >>> toe is conscious, we just need to know how the calcium atoms in the distal >>> phalanx of the big toe move. Are you saying that the forces on those atoms >>> are fundamentally different from the forces on calcium atoms elsewhere? >>> >>>> -- >>> Stathis Papaioannou >>> >> >> No. What you are saying is both right and irrelevant. Brain's use >> information encode in the field system, which is degenerately related to >> the position of ions. Stop talking about ion positions and start talking >> about "what it is like to BE ions. If you cannot see the problem space, >> then this discussion cannot progress anywhere. >> >> The information content in the total, emergent field system (not just >> their ionic charge source locations) is what I am talking about. >> > > I am not clear from what you said whether you think it is possible, in > theory, to calculate the trajectory of the calcium atoms in the tip of a > human big toe. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > > > Virus-free. > www.avast.com > > <#m_-7438638937091832737_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 04:51:31 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:51:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and a > libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern John > Galt.) > > Recall how in Rand?s novel John Galt got all those government contracts? > Remember how Galt was the scion of a wealthy family? You don?t recall those > things? Well, that?s because Galt wasn?t born into wealth and didn?t step > his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund. (Yeah, Galt > is a fictional character, but his fictional biography is of someone born > into a lower middle class family, leaving home at 12, and working his way > up from there.) > > This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space > technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s > hardly a John Galt. > > ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 04:57:57 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:57:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 27 psychedelics?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 9:11 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I would challenge that: that men are inherently better at spatial. After > all, girls are usually raised not to do spatial things, whereas boys are. > So years and years of encouraging boys to do X and _discouraging_ girls to > do X (or vice versa) plus stereotype threat (meaning most kids tend to > conform to pressures to perform certain stereotypical roles: the boy > actively discouraged from, say, playing with dolls from the time he?s a > toddler) and the like skews the adult data. You shouldn?t actively promote > certain roles on almost all children for decades or centuries and then > expect equal outcomes, no? > ### The cognitive differences between genders are innate, not forced by socialization. This is a well-established observation, even though much hated by leftists of all stripes. The differences emerge very early in development and are most pronounced in societies that are most gender-egalitarian, which is the very opposite of what would be observed if the differences were created by social influence. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:20:44 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:20:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6F31B1FC-07AA-4B93-8F25-42CED901955F@gmail.com> On Apr 26, 2022, at 9:53 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: >> On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >> > Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and a libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern John Galt.) >> >> Recall how in Rand?s novel John Galt got all those government contracts? Remember how Galt was the scion of a wealthy family? You don?t recall those things? Well, that?s because Galt wasn?t born into wealth and didn?t step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund. (Yeah, Galt is a fictional character, but his fictional biography is of someone born into a lower middle class family, leaving home at 12, and working his way up from there.) >> >> This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s hardly a John Galt. >> > > ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? Yes and yes. Do you know his biography? Do you know about his father?s wealth? Do you know how his business have actively pursued and gotten federal and state subsidies? Now Galt is a fictional character, but if you read the novel in which he appears he comes from a working class background ? father is an auto mechanic in Ohio ? leaves home at the age of twelve, goes to college at sixteen, then onward and upward in private enterprise (in Ayn Rand?s sense ? not the typical American sense of businesses using the state as a funding mechanism and to keep out competitors). Surely, this is Rand?s mythical self-made man. But imagine Galt started out from, say, a wealthy family ? maybe his father?s a multimillionaire ? and he goes into business pursuing government subsidies. Then probably even more folks would laugh at Rand than do now. I like the photos of the young Musk working on his BMW in a designer shirt under the rubric of him pulling himself up from his bootstraps. This is closer to the Bill Gates story ? he didn?t come from poor folk and somehow managed to get access to computer tech in high school ? and not to Andrew Carnegie ? who actually did start working in a cotton mill in the dangerous role of bobbin boy at twelve. Carnegie fits the Galt rags to riches story better than Gates or Musk. Granted, lots of rich kids don?t grow up to become billionaires, but it?s a helluva lot easier to get to billionaire when you have the big leg up in the world of having a wealthy family to back you, especially in your formative years and when you need, say, some seed capital to start a business. (The extreme case is a certain former president* who seems to have gotten about $400 million in today?s dollars from his father. Imagine getting that much money from your dad. That would cushion many of life?s blows and allow you to fuck up and recover in all sorts of ways, no?) Regards, Dan * It?s an exercise for the reader to figure out which former president this is. (This isn?t to praise the other former presidents. They tend to come from money. Very few rags to riches stories in their class.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 27 05:34:34 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:34:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008301d859f8$7b847770$728d6650$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat > wrote: On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: >>? Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and a libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern John Galt.) spike >? he?s hardly a John Galt. Dan ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? Rafal This is what Elon actually said: Rafal, people appear to be second-guessing Musk?s intentions and then arguing against the intentions they assigned to him, in flat contradiction to what he actually said. When people do that, I judge the detractor as contradicting what Musk actually said. I believe he means what he says. So? detractors are arguing against the notion that free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, arguing against making Twitter better with new features, arguing against increasing trust, against defeating spam bots, etc. Think about that. The detractors attack the man for perfectly irrelevant reasons, assign him motives based on speculation, ignore his actual words. I still haven?t seen a single sound argument against the intentions clearly outlined in the comments Musk actually made. It looks good to me. Can anyone find something bad in there? What? Fun aside: if Elon-haters inside the company wanted to destroy 44 billion dollars in Musk-wealth, could they not just block everyone? They have about six months, the estimated time to close a deal that size, to completely destroy the value of the company. They could burn the place down on their way out the door. I don?t know how software configuration control works in media companies. Anyone here know? Is there some kind of lock-down procedure? If they were shadow-banning, is there a way to un-ban and cover their tracks? Or can Elon go back and figure out if the conspiracy theory is true? It would be interesting to see if they really shadow-banned anyone who suggested that covid-19 originated in a research lab in China. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 32884 bytes Desc: not available URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 05:40:33 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:40:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <008301d859f8$7b847770$728d6650$@rainier66.com> References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> <008301d859f8$7b847770$728d6650$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 7:35 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > >>? Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and > a libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern > John Galt.) spike > > >? he?s hardly a John Galt. Dan > > > > ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the > financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? Rafal > > > > > > > > This is what Elon actually said: > > > > > > Rafal, people appear to be second-guessing Musk?s intentions and then > arguing against the intentions they assigned to him, in flat contradiction > to what he actually said. When people do that, I judge the detractor as > contradicting what Musk actually said. I believe he means what he says. > So? detractors are arguing against the notion that free speech is the > bedrock of a functioning democracy, arguing against making Twitter better > with new features, arguing against increasing trust, against defeating spam > bots, etc. > > > > Think about that. The detractors attack the man for perfectly irrelevant > reasons, assign him motives based on speculation, ignore his actual words. > I still haven?t seen a single sound argument against the intentions clearly > outlined in the comments Musk actually made. It looks good to me. Can > anyone find something bad in there? What? > Elon Musk is a smart and strong person who gets shit done instead of whining all the time. In today's sad parody of culture, this is a capital sin. > > > Fun aside: if Elon-haters inside the company wanted to destroy 44 billion > dollars in Musk-wealth, could they not just block everyone? They have > about six months, the estimated time to close a deal that size, to > completely destroy the value of the company. They could burn the place > down on their way out the door. > > > > I don?t know how software configuration control works in media companies. > Anyone here know? Is there some kind of lock-down procedure? If they were > shadow-banning, is there a way to un-ban and cover their tracks? Or can > Elon go back and figure out if the conspiracy theory is true? It would be > interesting to see if they really shadow-banned anyone who suggested that > covid-19 originated in a research lab in China. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 32884 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 07:02:34 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 03:02:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:53 PM Colin Hales wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:35 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> >>> The chip designers spend a lot of time eliminating field >>> cross-talk effects (treated as functional errors), confining EM fields to >>> individual devices. In the brain, nature has created a unique signature in >>> its EM field expression and the bulk EM field has a functional role. >>> Field-effect cross talk is so pronounced, that it is possible to regard the >>> brain as a single, unitary 100% solid EM field object so spatially large >>> and strong that it spills out into the surrounding tissue (EEG/MEG see it). >>> >> >> ### Does the bulk EM field of the brain have a functional role? How? Is >> there empirical evidence in favor? >> > > *The most recent (in 10 years of results) is * > Chiang, C.-C., Shivacharan, R.S., Wei, X., Gonzalez-Reyes, L.E., and > Durand, D.M. (2019). Slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal > slice can self-propagate non-synaptically by a mechanism consistent with > ephaptic coupling. The Journal of Physiology 597, 249-269. > https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1113/JP276904 > > ### Ephaptic transmission is nothing new. We know that electric fields can influence neural tissue functioning under pathological conditions, for example during seizures. This is the basis of ECT and it's simple physics. However, there is no evidence that global EM fields generated by the brain have any computational role in the brain. Before I go on about EM fields and the brain let me differentiate between the computational and the physical aspects of the brain. Computational aspects pertain to the structures and processes that are directly involved in the processing of information on a fine scale. For example, the impact of a photon on a retinal receptor creates chemical reactions and electric potentials in a small number of connected cells, is propagated up the network into the brain and eventually is interpreted as information about the source of the photon, similar to the computations that happen when a photon enters a camera and eventually is used by an AI app on your computer to recognize your face. On the other hand, the heat and the spent chemical energy carriers created during the computational processes in the brain are not directly computational and are merely physical aspects, just like the heat generated by your laptop. There is a reason why some aspects of the brain, or a computer, are computational while others are merely physical. Interesting information processing consists of many moving parts. You need trillions of processing steps to extract information about a face from a stream of photons, which is why you need billions of fine-grained entities working in parallel on millions of streams of bits to do this job. You need synapses that are not globally connected to all synapses but rather synapses that form particular patterns of connections suited to face recognition, working on input streams that are highly structured. These synapses cannot be just globally synchronized, because a million synapses doing exactly the same thing are not processing a million pieces of information, they are just repeating one process. Highly synchronized firing of multiple synapses is what happens during a seizure, and a seizure does not process information. Physical processes and structures that are not fine-grained cannot be the medium for complex (e.g. visual) information processing because they do not contain the necessary independent parts that could model the millions of bits in the images. This is why the brain does not use heat or sound transfer for information processing - heat and sound tend to spread indiscriminately and are hard to channel in independent streams, while electric currents and specific chemical reactions are easy to channel in wires and to contain in synaptic vesicles. EM fields, just like heat and sound, spread omnidirectionally, and thus they cannot transfer large amounts of information between computational elements. Globally spreading EM fields cannot encode enough information to sustain complex information processing (i.e. they do not have sufficient bandwidth). A wifi connection can broadcast only a small fraction of what can be delivered by a multi fiber optic interconnect to specific targets. The global EM field in the brain cannot encode anything but an infinitesimal fraction of the bandwidth carried by the billions of axons and dendrites. This is why I know, from first principles, that EEG is the noise generated by neurons, and not the carrier wave for neural information processing. ------------------------------ > When the researchers air-gapped the tissue (1mm) with a scalpel and still > got an influence, they pretty much nailed it. The reviewers did not believe > them and made them do the experiment again. > ### They cut up the brain and created waves of synchronized firing of neurons, under pathological conditions (cut up brain pieces), similar to a seizure. This has nothing to do with information processing in the intact brain. ------------------------ > > Saying 'EEG is just noise' is part of the problem! It's not noise. It's > complex and originates at the nanometer scale of the neural membrane. > ### No, EEG is not complex. Have you ever looked at an EEG? I did, and even used to read EEGs. The EEG encodes less than a trillionth of the information processed in the brain, so yes, it's just surface electric noise. It doesn't matter that it originates at the nanometer scale. The heat produced in the brain also originates as the nanometer scale, so what. ----------------------------------- > Did you read the two quotes? The entire brain is EM from the atomic level > up. The EEG/MEG is just the coarse/bulk behaviour measured outside its > generating brain tissue. The field system is impressed on space with atomic > level resolution and becomes functional at the nanometer-micrometer scale > down underneath LFP measurements. > ### The bulk electric fields do not have atomic level resolution. The whole idea of having nerve fibers and synapses is to have structures that are ionically or chemically isolated from neighbors is to allow for billions of physical objects to model billions of pieces of information. A neuron's EM field is not isolated from neighbors, it is indiscriminately affected by all neighboring EM sources, so it cannot contribute to independent calculations. Try to imagine a neuron trying to do an AND function on two other neighboring neurons. Let's say that the input neurons create an on-off EM field and the integrating neuron can detect it. If there are only two neighboring neurons it could read the EM fields and correctly call the function. But if there are three neighbors, or a hundred neighbors, the EM signal from those particular two input neurons is swamped by signals from other neighbors, and the integrating neuron will not be able to call the function. On the other hand, if the neuron has the correct synaptic connections to the two input neurons it will be able to call the function from the synaptic input, even in the presence of thousands of neighbors, since synaptic signals do not interfere with neighboring synapses. Once you go through the mechanics of how logic operations are implemented in the brain, you will realize that EM fields cannot be a significant contributor to logic operations in the brain. ------------------------ > Transcranial Electric Stimulation (Electric field) and Transcranial > Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) are very blunt instruments, but the effects are > obvious and have clinical impact and do affect cognition and behaviour, > mood and many other things. > ### TMS temporarily switches off parts of the brain. It does not create new information processing capabilities, just turns off parts and lets you see what the remaining parts can do. Nothing exciting. ------------------------------ > The reasons these things do anything is because of the EM basis of > everything that is a brain. Even ultrasonic stimulation is an EM > phenomenon. Mechanical motion is an EM field phenomenon. Hearing sound is > an EM field process. > and > > Just like in computers, there is only 1 source of ultimate causality in > the brain: The Lorentz force, which is entirely an EM field process. > ### How about you give me a mechanistic explanation for how an "EM field process" can process a few hundred million streams of bits that it takes to create the conscious experience of hearing a sound? No hand waving about Lorentz force, lol. ---------------------------------- > > The 'hardware' of the brain and the computer is based on atoms. Both are > 100% EM from the scale of atoms up. A rock is an EM object. Chemical is EM. > All 'information' in the brain is encoded in, literally IS, EM phenomena. > There is nothing else there in space but EM. 'Long-distance communication' > is an EM phenomenon. 'Electric current' is a transit of an EM field through > space. The difference between the brain and a computer/heart/liver is in > how the EM is organized. All these things are 100% EM from the atoms up. > The gigantic amount of information encoded in the literal structure of the > brain's EM field system (that pervades the tissue) has no analogue in any > general-purpose computer and has no role in any models of brain function > (yet) that exist in computer models.. "To 'be' the EM field system > impressed on space by a brain is to be conscious" is almost trivially true > because there is nothing else to choose from. > ### Complete woo-woo. One more reason I know that it's woo-woo is because I know that the brain is not perturbed by externally applied electric fields of similar or higher intensity than EEG. If you clench your teeth, the whole brain is bathed in the chaotic EM fields generated by your masticatory muscles. These muscle artifacts are something you can see on EEG and they completely swamp the much weaker EM signals in the brain. If the brain's consciousness was encoded in its bulk EM field, every time you chewed an apple you would pass out, because your brain EM field would be completely altered by the muscle artifact. Since I don't pass out from chewing, I know the bulk EM field of the brain does not carry my consciousness. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 07:22:35 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 03:22:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <6F31B1FC-07AA-4B93-8F25-42CED901955F@gmail.com> References: <6F31B1FC-07AA-4B93-8F25-42CED901955F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:22 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Apr 26, 2022, at 9:53 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> > Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and a >> libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern John >> Galt.) >> >> Recall how in Rand?s novel John Galt got all those government contracts? >> Remember how Galt was the scion of a wealthy family? You don?t recall those >> things? Well, that?s because Galt wasn?t born into wealth and didn?t step >> his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund. (Yeah, Galt >> is a fictional character, but his fictional biography is of someone born >> into a lower middle class family, leaving home at 12, and working his way >> up from there.) >> >> This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space >> technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s >> hardly a John Galt. >> >> > ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the > financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? > > > Yes and yes. Do you know his biography? Do you know about his father?s > wealth? > ### Are you claiming Errol Musk was rich? How rich exactly? ---------------------------------- Do you know how his business have actively pursued and gotten federal and > state subsidies? > ### Are you claiming Elon Musk made his money from state subsidies? What fraction? Do look things up in reputable sources. Daily Kos and Gizmodo don't count. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 09:35:20 2022 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 19:35:20 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 5:04 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 11:53 PM Colin Hales wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:02 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 7:35 PM Colin Hales via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The chip designers spend a lot of time eliminating field >>>> cross-talk effects (treated as functional errors), confining EM fields to >>>> individual devices. In the brain, nature has created a unique signature in >>>> its EM field expression and the bulk EM field has a functional role. >>>> Field-effect cross talk is so pronounced, that it is possible to regard the >>>> brain as a single, unitary 100% solid EM field object so spatially large >>>> and strong that it spills out into the surrounding tissue (EEG/MEG see it). >>>> >>> >>> ### Does the bulk EM field of the brain have a functional role? How? Is >>> there empirical evidence in favor? >>> >> >> *The most recent (in 10 years of results) is * >> Chiang, C.-C., Shivacharan, R.S., Wei, X., Gonzalez-Reyes, L.E., and >> Durand, D.M. (2019). Slow periodic activity in the longitudinal hippocampal >> slice can self-propagate non-synaptically by a mechanism consistent with >> ephaptic coupling. The Journal of Physiology 597, 249-269. >> https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1113/JP276904 >> >> ### Ephaptic transmission is nothing new. We know that electric fields > can influence neural tissue functioning under pathological conditions, for > example during seizures. This is the basis of ECT and it's simple physics. > However, there is no evidence that global EM fields generated by the brain > have any computational role in the brain. > > Before I go on about EM fields and the brain let me differentiate between > the computational and the physical aspects of the brain. Computational > aspects pertain to the structures and processes that are directly involved > in the processing of information on a fine scale. For example, the impact > of a photon on a retinal receptor creates chemical reactions and electric > potentials in a small number of connected cells, is propagated up the > network into the brain and eventually is interpreted as information about > the source of the photon, similar to the computations that happen when a > photon enters a camera and eventually is used by an AI app on your computer > to recognize your face. On the other hand, the heat and the spent chemical > energy carriers created during the computational processes in the brain are > not directly computational and are merely physical aspects, just like the > heat generated by your laptop. > > There is a reason why some aspects of the brain, or a computer, are > computational while others are merely physical. Interesting information > processing consists of many moving parts. You need trillions of processing > steps to extract information about a face from a stream of photons, which > is why you need billions of fine-grained entities working in parallel on > millions of streams of bits to do this job. You need synapses that are not > globally connected to all synapses but rather synapses that form particular > patterns of connections suited to face recognition, working on input > streams that are highly structured. These synapses cannot be just globally > synchronized, because a million synapses doing exactly the same thing are > not processing a million pieces of information, they are just repeating one > process. Highly synchronized firing of multiple synapses is what happens > during a seizure, and a seizure does not process information. Physical > processes and structures that are not fine-grained cannot be the medium for > complex (e.g. visual) information processing because they do not contain > the necessary independent parts that could model the millions of bits in > the images. This is why the brain does not use heat or sound transfer for > information processing - heat and sound tend to spread indiscriminately and > are hard to channel in independent streams, while electric currents and > specific chemical reactions are easy to channel in wires and to contain in > synaptic vesicles. EM fields, just like heat and sound, spread > omnidirectionally, and thus they cannot transfer large amounts of > information between computational elements. > > Globally spreading EM fields cannot encode enough information to sustain > complex information processing (i.e. they do not have sufficient > bandwidth). A wifi connection can broadcast only a small fraction of what > can be delivered by a multi fiber optic interconnect to specific targets. > The global EM field in the brain cannot encode anything but an > infinitesimal fraction of the bandwidth carried by the billions of axons > and dendrites. This is why I know, from first principles, that EEG is the > noise generated by neurons, and not the carrier wave for neural information > processing. > > ------------------------------ > > >> When the researchers air-gapped the tissue (1mm) with a scalpel and >> still got an influence, they pretty much nailed it. The reviewers did not >> believe them and made them do the experiment again. >> > > ### They cut up the brain and created waves of synchronized firing of > neurons, under pathological conditions (cut up brain pieces), similar to a > seizure. This has nothing to do with information processing in the intact > brain. > > ------------------------ > >> >> Saying 'EEG is just noise' is part of the problem! It's not noise. It's >> complex and originates at the nanometer scale of the neural membrane. >> > > ### No, EEG is not complex. Have you ever looked at an EEG? I did, and > even used to read EEGs. The EEG encodes less than a trillionth of the > information processed in the brain, so yes, it's just surface electric > noise. It doesn't matter that it originates at the nanometer scale. The > heat produced in the brain also originates as the nanometer scale, so what. > > ----------------------------------- > > >> Did you read the two quotes? The entire brain is EM from the atomic level >> up. The EEG/MEG is just the coarse/bulk behaviour measured outside its >> generating brain tissue. The field system is impressed on space with atomic >> level resolution and becomes functional at the nanometer-micrometer scale >> down underneath LFP measurements. >> > > ### The bulk electric fields do not have atomic level resolution. The > whole idea of having nerve fibers and synapses is to have structures that > are ionically or chemically isolated from neighbors is to allow for > billions of physical objects to model billions of pieces of information. A > neuron's EM field is not isolated from neighbors, it is indiscriminately > affected by all neighboring EM sources, so it cannot contribute to > independent calculations. > > Try to imagine a neuron trying to do an AND function on two other > neighboring neurons. Let's say that the input neurons create an on-off EM > field and the integrating neuron can detect it. If there are only two > neighboring neurons it could read the EM fields and correctly call the > function. But if there are three neighbors, or a hundred neighbors, the EM > signal from those particular two input neurons is swamped by signals from > other neighbors, and the integrating neuron will not be able to call the > function. On the other hand, if the neuron has the correct synaptic > connections to the two input neurons it will be able to call the function > from the synaptic input, even in the presence of thousands of neighbors, > since synaptic signals do not interfere with neighboring synapses. > > Once you go through the mechanics of how logic operations are implemented > in the brain, you will realize that EM fields cannot be a significant > contributor to logic operations in the brain. > ------------------------ > > >> Transcranial Electric Stimulation (Electric field) and Transcranial >> Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) are very blunt instruments, but the effects are >> obvious and have clinical impact and do affect cognition and behaviour, >> mood and many other things. >> > > ### TMS temporarily switches off parts of the brain. It does not create > new information processing capabilities, just turns off parts and lets you > see what the remaining parts can do. Nothing exciting. > ------------------------------ > > >> The reasons these things do anything is because of the EM basis of >> everything that is a brain. Even ultrasonic stimulation is an EM >> phenomenon. Mechanical motion is an EM field phenomenon. Hearing sound is >> an EM field process. >> > > and > >> >> Just like in computers, there is only 1 source of ultimate causality in >> the brain: The Lorentz force, which is entirely an EM field process. >> > > ### How about you give me a mechanistic explanation for how an "EM field > process" can process a few hundred million streams of bits that it takes to > create the conscious experience of hearing a sound? No hand waving about > Lorentz force, lol. > > ---------------------------------- > >> >> The 'hardware' of the brain and the computer is based on atoms. Both are >> 100% EM from the scale of atoms up. A rock is an EM object. Chemical is EM. >> All 'information' in the brain is encoded in, literally IS, EM phenomena. >> There is nothing else there in space but EM. 'Long-distance communication' >> is an EM phenomenon. 'Electric current' is a transit of an EM field through >> space. The difference between the brain and a computer/heart/liver is in >> how the EM is organized. All these things are 100% EM from the atoms up. >> The gigantic amount of information encoded in the literal structure of the >> brain's EM field system (that pervades the tissue) has no analogue in any >> general-purpose computer and has no role in any models of brain function >> (yet) that exist in computer models.. "To 'be' the EM field system >> impressed on space by a brain is to be conscious" is almost trivially true >> because there is nothing else to choose from. >> > > ### Complete woo-woo. > > One more reason I know that it's woo-woo is because I know that the brain > is not perturbed by externally applied electric fields of similar or higher > intensity than EEG. If you clench your teeth, the whole brain is bathed in > the chaotic EM fields generated by your masticatory muscles. These muscle > artifacts are something you can see on EEG and they completely swamp the > much weaker EM signals in the brain. If the brain's consciousness was > encoded in its bulk EM field, every time you chewed an apple you would pass > out, because your brain EM field would be completely altered by the muscle > artifact. Since I don't pass out from chewing, I know the bulk EM field of > the brain does not carry my consciousness. > > Rafal > The EEG and MEG are tiny residual scalp fields from tissue originating 1cm away from scalp. Of course they are messed up by muscle artefacts (scalp, facial and heart). The actual fields in the brain tissue, that originate the EEG, are inside the membrane, are many orders of magnitude stronger. Transmembrane electric field dynamics (1cm away) are 10,000,000 volts/m and that can completely reverse in direction. Muscle artefacts is totally irrelevant there. Everything I have said is straight out of the standard model of particle physics, and then interpreted based on my having a PHD in brain electromagnetism. I am clearly in the wrong place to engage these issues. Apologies. I'll leave it there. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 10:10:56 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:10:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2022. Apr 24., Sun at 7:56, Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I recently posted this question recently to the everything list > , but I know > many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, I > thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: > > These "artificial life" forms, (seen here > ), > have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a > changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food" and > "poison" in their environment. > > If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they > have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be > conscious for the same reasons? > I think whether ALife forms are conscious or not depends on their physical implementation. > Why or why not? > > Jason > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 27 13:15:31 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:15:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: <000601d8597f$c5b19d60$5114d820$@rainier66.com> <008301d859f8$7b847770$728d6650$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007201d85a38$dfbf8a50$9f3e9ef0$@rainier66.com> From: Giulio Prisco ? On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 7:35 AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: ? >>?Rafal, people appear to be second-guessing Musk?s intentions and then arguing against the intentions they assigned to him, in flat contradiction to what he actually said. ? It looks good to me. Can anyone find something bad in there? What? >?Elon Musk is a smart and strong person who gets shit done instead of whining all the time. In today's sad parody of culture, this is a capital sin. Giulio Ja thanks for that Giulio. Musk is a disruptor, perhaps the most important disruptor in the past coupla decades. We desperately needed a good disrupting. OK we get one. Disrupting a sad parody of culture isn?t a capital sin in my scriptures, it is capital righteousness. I am a big fan of capital righteousness. Regarding the feet-first landing boosters: currently we have two of those rigs landing simultaneously side by side. Is that cool or what? If two can be done, then three can land simultaneously, or six. We get the advantages of liquid-fueled first stages without the crazy expensive throw-away-after-one-use liquids used on everything pre-shuttle. With that notion, we have another possibility: a partial atmospheric re-entry, not a full-on space shuttle style re-entry with payload, but rather a re-entry from half orbit speed and 70 km altitude (so it is still skimming the upper atmosphere (and loses much of its velocity up there (getting all the way down to subsonic before hitting the thick stuff))) with a landing site in Africa. The re-entry event is with a lightweight shell, an empty tank, with minimal control surfaces and that expensive liquid-burning engine. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 13:40:37 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:40:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 6:12 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On 2022. Apr 24., Sun at 7:56, Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I recently posted this question recently to the everything list >> , but I know >> many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, I >> thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: >> >> These "artificial life" forms, (seen here >> ), >> have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a >> changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food" and >> "poison" in their environment. >> >> If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they >> have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be >> conscious for the same reasons? >> > > I think whether ALife forms are conscious or not depends on their physical > implementation. > Hi Giulio, What do you think are the necessary aspects of a physical implementation for there to be a consciousness? Is the physical implementation relevant for simulated rather than robotic Alife forms? Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 13:52:56 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:52:56 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:42 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 6:12 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> On 2022. Apr 24., Sun at 7:56, Jason Resch via extropy-chat wrote: >>> >>> I recently posted this question recently to the everything list, but I know many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, I thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: >>> >>> These "artificial life" forms, (seen here), have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food" and "poison" in their environment. >>> >>> If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be conscious for the same reasons? >> >> >> I think whether ALife forms are conscious or not depends on their physical implementation. > > > Hi Giulio, > > What do you think are the necessary aspects of a physical implementation for there to be a consciousness? > Print an algorithm in a big book, then put the book on a shelf and leave it there. The idea that the book is "conscious" seems very unlikely to me. This shows that something must *happen* in physical reality for consciousness to exist. > Is the physical implementation relevant for simulated rather than robotic Alife forms? > Yes, I think. A conventional algorithm running on a computer like those we know how to build wouldn't be conscious, I think. But new "algorithms" (for want of a better term) "running" on new devices could. > Jason > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jasonresch at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 14:55:16 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:55:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 9:54 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:42 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 6:12 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 2022. Apr 24., Sun at 7:56, Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> I recently posted this question recently to the everything list, but I > know many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness so, > I thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: > >>> > >>> These "artificial life" forms, (seen here), have neural networks that > evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a changing environment, and > can learn to distinguish between "food" and "poison" in their environment. > >>> > >>> If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because they > have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms be > conscious for the same reasons? > >> > >> > >> I think whether ALife forms are conscious or not depends on their > physical implementation. > > > > > > Hi Giulio, > > > > What do you think are the necessary aspects of a physical implementation > for there to be a consciousness? > > > > Print an algorithm in a big book, then put the book on a shelf and > leave it there. The idea that the book is "conscious" seems very > unlikely to me. I agree it doesn't seem like passive/idle information is conscious. Any string of information could be interpreted in any of an infinite number of ways. This shows that something must *happen* in physical > reality for consciousness to exist. > I think while something must happen, I am open to viewing it more generally: there must be counterfactual relations: "if this, then that," but also: "if not this, then not that." This is something all recordings lack but all live instances of information processing possess. > > Is the physical implementation relevant for simulated rather than > robotic Alife forms? > > > > Yes, I think. A conventional algorithm running on a computer like > those we know how to build wouldn't be conscious, I think. But new > "algorithms" (for want of a better term) "running" on new devices > could. > Do you have any intuition it theories for what our current devices lack that they would need? Given Turing universality, I find it difficult to imagine anything that current hardware devices need (the right software sure), but with Turing universality any general purpose computer could implement any non-infinity-involving function, and therefore replicate any outwardly visible human behavior. If you grant that worms are conscious, why not these bots: https://github.com/jasonkresch/bots ? Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 15:46:24 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:46:24 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2022. Apr 27., Wed at 16:57, Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 9:54 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:42 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 6:12 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2022. Apr 24., Sun at 7:56, Jason Resch via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I recently posted this question recently to the everything list, but >> I know many here are also deeply interested in the topic of consciousness >> so, I thought I should post it to this group too. My question was: >> >>> >> >>> These "artificial life" forms, (seen here), have neural networks that >> evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a changing environment, and >> can learn to distinguish between "food" and "poison" in their environment. >> >>> >> >>> If simple creatures like worms or insects are conscious, (because >> they have brains, and evolved), then wouldn't these artificial life forms >> be conscious for the same reasons? >> >> >> >> >> >> I think whether ALife forms are conscious or not depends on their >> physical implementation. >> > >> > >> > Hi Giulio, >> > >> > What do you think are the necessary aspects of a physical >> implementation for there to be a consciousness? >> > >> >> Print an algorithm in a big book, then put the book on a shelf and >> leave it there. The idea that the book is "conscious" seems very >> unlikely to me. > > > I agree it doesn't seem like passive/idle information is conscious. Any > string of information could be interpreted in any of an infinite number of > ways. > > This shows that something must *happen* in physical >> reality for consciousness to exist. >> > > I think while something must happen, I am open to viewing it more > generally: there must be counterfactual relations: "if this, then that," > but also: "if not this, then not that." This is something all recordings > lack but all live instances of information processing possess. > > >> > Is the physical implementation relevant for simulated rather than >> robotic Alife forms? >> > >> >> Yes, I think. A conventional algorithm running on a computer like >> those we know how to build wouldn't be conscious, I think. But new >> "algorithms" (for want of a better term) "running" on new devices >> could. >> > > Do you have any intuition it theories for what our current devices lack > that they would need? > Perhaps integrated information (Tononi), or some quantum thing (Penrose), or some combination of the two. > Given Turing universality, I find it difficult to imagine anything that > current hardware devices need (the right software sure), but with Turing > universality any general purpose computer could implement any > non-infinity-involving function, and therefore replicate any outwardly > visible human behavior. > > If you grant that worms are conscious, why not these bots: > > https://github.com/jasonkresch/bots ? > > > Jason > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 20:13:51 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:13:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the best chili Message-ID: Having won three chili contests I can write with some authority. What is below is not the process I used to win, but it did make an excellent chili. Assemble four recipes. Make a table and enter for each ingredient the amount of it for each pound of meat. Then average each row or column, yielding data like: 1.5 onions per pound of meat, 1 T chili powder, and so on. I never use chili powder. It has ingredients like cumin and oregano. Use pure chile. A key ingredient is the liquid. I never use water. I never did like the smell of beef stock so I always used chicken (in my case, homemade). Additions: some Worcestershire sauce added when browning the meat makes a huge difference which you may like. Umami will do a similar thing. I would brine the meat (chuck roast preferred - pieces the size of a small pecan) for a couple of days. I can't find any difference between adding hot stuff to the pot versus to the bowl of finished chili, so I never put any in the pot, having a wife who is supersensitive to heat. Green peppers are traditional but I use the ripe ones. Idea: don't saute the vegetables - you are going to cook them a couple of hours at least in the pot. Or saute' some and not others the way Prudhomme would suggest, to get some variation in texture - a little crunch of onions for ex. Enjoy! bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 21:57:10 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:57:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] chili - final touch Message-ID: Get some masa harina (grocery store, Latino section). Put about a tablespoon in a small pan and brown it. It is essentially corn flour. Add to bowl. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Apr 27 22:26:20 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:26:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gender equality Message-ID: Interesting idea: the Italian high court ruled that newborns must be named for both parents. Then the parents can choose to use one or the other or both. Presumably when grown the children can make their own choices, but that was not included in the story. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Wed Apr 27 23:25:13 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:25:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gender equality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005001d85a8e$0bf06770$23d13650$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Sent: Wednesday, 27 April, 2022 3:26 PM To: ExI chat list Cc: William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] gender equality Interesting idea: the Italian high court ruled that newborns must be named for both parents. Then the parents can choose to use one or the other or both. Presumably when grown the children can make their own choices, but that was not included in the story. bill w What if you only know one of the parents? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gadersd at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 18:02:12 2022 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Hermes Trismegistus) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 14:02:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged Message-ID: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 18:24:36 2022 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:24:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: The book is unashamed and unabashed literal propaganda for a very specific political philosophy. The characters in the book that endorse and embody the philosophy are literal demigods of virtue, strength, and morality (within the framework of the philosophy) and those in opposition are, at best, pathetic, confused and compromised, or (more commonly) outright mustache-twirling pastiches of pure evil. This isn't necessarily a criticism of the book's artistic merit, let alone of the underlying philosophy, but it's a fair warning of the literary genre the author was writing in. By way of example, in about the center of the novel, one of the main characters delivers, in a monologue, what can only be called a manifesto of the political philosophy. At this point the author abandons any pretense of this being a novel in any conventional sense. The entire section abandons any pretense of moving the plot forward and lasts for more than 50 pages in the paperback edition. You'll recognize it when you see it. On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:04 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I have heard mention of Ayn Rand?s works, particularly Atlas Shrugged, on > this list and other places. I have not read it myself, but am interested in > your all?s thoughts on the book. The book seems to be very polarizing, with > some loathing it and others praising it. I come mostly from a libertarian > perspective and am curious as to the potential pitfalls of the book and > what may be learned by reading it. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 18:31:36 2022 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:31:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: I read the book twice in my life. Once as young adult in my early twenties and again about 20 years later which was not as much fun. My take is that it's really pornography it's so sexy really sexy way to be authoritarian Smile, ilsa On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 11:25 AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The book is unashamed and unabashed literal propaganda for a very specific > political philosophy. The characters in the book that endorse and embody > the philosophy are literal demigods of virtue, strength, and morality > (within the framework of the philosophy) and those in opposition are, at > best, pathetic, confused and compromised, or (more commonly) outright > mustache-twirling pastiches of pure evil. > > This isn't necessarily a criticism of the book's artistic merit, let alone > of the underlying philosophy, but it's a fair warning of the literary genre > the author was writing in. > > By way of example, in about the center of the novel, one of the main > characters delivers, in a monologue, what can only be called a manifesto of > the political philosophy. At this point the author abandons any pretense of > this being a novel in any conventional sense. The entire section abandons > any pretense of moving the plot forward and lasts for more than 50 pages in > the paperback edition. You'll recognize it when you see it. > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:04 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> I have heard mention of Ayn Rand?s works, particularly Atlas Shrugged, on >> this list and other places. I have not read it myself, but am interested in >> your all?s thoughts on the book. The book seems to be very polarizing, with >> some loathing it and others praising it. I come mostly from a libertarian >> perspective and am curious as to the potential pitfalls of the book and >> what may be learned by reading it. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Apr 28 18:34:17 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 11:34:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged >?I have heard mention of Ayn Rand?s works, particularly Atlas Shrugged, on this list and other places. I have not read it myself, but am interested in your all?s thoughts on the book. The book seems to be very polarizing, with some loathing it and others praising it. I come mostly from a libertarian perspective and am curious as to the potential pitfalls of the book and what may be learned by reading it. Hermes Hermes, I loved it, but do understand what you are getting. John Galt is the fantasy libertarian ideal business guy who does everything right and succeeds but of course government bureaucracy fights him. Any resemblance to Elon Musk is purely coincidental you understand and oh by the way, the same week Musk buys Twitter the US government is suddenly very interested in creating a federal agency to stop misinformation on the internet but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, nothing to see here. Hell never mind reading 65 year old fiction, look at what is actually happening today. Example, a news parody site, the Babylon Bee, posted a gag about a Twitter employee?s absurd over- sensitivity, getting therapy in response to Musk buying Twitter. In response, Twitter put a warning label that the post contains sensitive content. ?heeeeeeeheheheheheheheheheheheeeeee? good one, Twitter. That in itself was a terrific self-referential self-parody play-along-with-the-gag on the part of Twitter. Or rather it would be, if we could be completely sure that Twitter really was intending to make fun of itself. I have nagging doubts. How do you read that? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36555 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 19:09:36 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 20:09:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 19:39, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > Hermes, I loved it, but do understand what you are getting. John Galt is the fantasy libertarian ideal business guy who does everything right and succeeds but of course government bureaucracy fights him. Any resemblance to Elon Musk is purely coincidental you understand and oh by the way, the same week Musk buys Twitter the US government is suddenly very interested in creating a federal agency to stop misinformation on the internet but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain, nothing to see here. > > Hell never mind reading 65 year old fiction, look at what is actually happening today. > > > spike > _______________________________________________ Well, Orwell's 1984 is now being rewritten from a politically correct feminist point of view by American writer Sandra Newman. Maybe Atlas Shrugged is due for a rewrite as well. As you will remember in 1984, Winston Smith works at The Ministry of Truth, rewriting history to suit Big Brother?s narrative. Now he will be rewriting 'misinformation' that the US government disapproves of. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Thu Apr 28 19:13:46 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:13:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: <002201d85b34$162e7500$428b5f00$@rainier66.com> On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 11:25 AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat > wrote: >? The characters in the book that endorse and embody the philosophy are literal demigods of virtue, strength, and morality (within the framework of the philosophy) and those in opposition are, at best, pathetic, confused and compromised, or (more commonly) outright mustache-twirling pastiches of pure evil. Sure but that almost makes it sound like it is a bad thing. Atlas was published several years before the first traces of nuance were introduced in comic book super-heroes. Note that nuance is not found in Superman or Lex Luthor. It was just simple good guys and bad guys back then. In the 60s, Spiderman at least had early traces of nuance, where Peter Parker was subject to lust, temptation to make money, certainly heartbreak etc. Pete was human. Most of us could relate: we had a Mary Jane Watson somewhere in our lives. His power came from technology (and doesn?t ours?) Spiderman?s super-hero predecessors, including John Galt, didn?t have much humanity showing. I like Ilsa?s analogy for Atlas Shrugged: libertarian porn. Hey it worked on me: I sure get turned on. I could forget the goofy story, go straight to the 50 pages of libertarian manifesto, they way we did in the olden days with Peyton Place if we could find a copy in the library where some kind soul had marked the sexy parts. Peyton Place isn?t as sexy as what is available today, but it was all we had back then. spike From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of ilsa via extropy-chat Sent: Thursday, 28 April, 2022 11:32 AM To: ExI chat list Cc: ilsa Subject: Re: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged I read the book twice in my life. Once as young adult in my early twenties and again about 20 years later which was not as much fun. My take is that it's really pornography it's so sexy really sexy way to be authoritarian Smile, ilsa On Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 11:25 AM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat > wrote: ? The characters in the book that endorse and embody the philosophy are literal demigods of virtue, strength, and morality (within the framework of the philosophy) and those in opposition are, at best, pathetic, confused and compromised, or (more commonly) outright mustache-twirling pastiches of pure evil. This isn't necessarily a criticism of the book's artistic merit, let alone of the underlying philosophy, but it's a fair warning of the literary genre the author was writing in. By way of example, in about the center of the novel, one of the main characters delivers, in a monologue, what can only be called a manifesto of the political philosophy. At this point the author abandons any pretense of this being a novel in any conventional sense. The entire section abandons any pretense of moving the plot forward and lasts for more than 50 pages in the paperback edition. You'll recognize it when you see it. On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 12:04 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat > wrote: I have heard mention of Ayn Rand?s works, particularly Atlas Shrugged, on this list and other places. I have not read it myself, but am interested in your all?s thoughts on the book. The book seems to be very polarizing, with some loathing it and others praising it. I come mostly from a libertarian perspective and am curious as to the potential pitfalls of the book and what may be learned by reading it. _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Thu Apr 28 19:20:04 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:20:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <000201d85b34$f7234360$e569ca20$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat ... > _______________________________________________ >...As you will remember in 1984, Winston Smith works at The Ministry of Truth, rewriting history to suit Big Brother?s narrative. Now he will be rewriting 'misinformation' that the US government disapproves of. BillK _______________________________________________ BillK, I demand (DEMAND!) that everyone here who has not read Orwell's 1984 read Orwell's 1984. Then read today's news about this proposed US government agency tasked with being... the Ministry of Truth, with "truth" being defined as whatever the US government says it is. spike From pharos at gmail.com Thu Apr 28 19:59:50 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 20:59:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Turing test was passed in 1989 Message-ID: What an abusive chatbot teaches us about the art of conversation Tim Harford 28th April, 2022 Quotes: In 1989, several years before the world watched the chess-playing supercomputer Deep Blue vanquish the world champion Garry Kasparov, a computer notched up a different milestone in artificial intelligence that was all but unnoticed. This was largely because the evidence was too crude to be publishable. ------- Over the next hour and 20 minutes, the two exchanged juvenile insults and prurient questions, with MGonz goading the student into boasting about the size of his manhood. Finally, the student called MGonz a ?stupid homosexual?, MGonz called the student ?obviously an asshole? and the student logged off, presumably writing off MGonz as an abusive troll. But while MGonz was abusive, it was not a troll ? it was a simple chatbot programmed by UCD undergrad Mark Humphrys that was left to lurk online while Humphrys went to the pub. The next day, Humphrys reviewed the chat logs in astonishment. His MGonz chatbot had passed the Turing test. --------- Turing?s test is a benchmark for artificial intelligence, and a controversial one ? but I am less interested in the test itself than in the moral of the story of MGonz?s success. Faced with the difficult task of convincing a human that a chatbot is human, the obvious tactic is to increase the sophistication of the chatbot. Humphrys stumbled upon an alternative: reduce the sophistication of the human. MGonz had passed the Turing test, but is it not also fair to say that the student had failed it? A good conversation involves give and take, builds over time and exists in a context rather than a vacuum. These are all things that any chatbot finds hard. But MGonz generates plausible dialogue because insults need neither context nor memory. And it is impossible to read the MGonz transcript without thinking of ugly parallels, including the chaotic first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, or any Twitter spat you care to name. Cathy O?Neil?s book The Shame Machine describes Twitter pile-ons as reflecting ?a host of reactions: pain, fury, denial and often a frantic search for acceptance?. It is an environment in which MGonz would thrive. I am not sure I can suggest much to make social media less angry and shallow, or political discourse less pre-cooked and polarised. But each of us can take responsibility for our own conversations. A useful rule of thumb is that if we are having dialogues that MGonz could emulate, we should probably be rethinking our approach. ----------------- On one hand there's the art of conversation; and then on the other hand there's shouting abuse at each other. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Thu Apr 28 23:34:13 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 16:34:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001c01d85b58$78a41ae0$69ec50a0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com >?Example, a news parody site, the Babylon Bee, posted a gag about a Twitter employee?s absurd over- sensitivity, getting therapy in response to Musk buying Twitter. In response, Twitter put a warning label that the post contains sensitive content. >?heeeeeeeheheheheheheheheheheheeeeee? good one, Twitter. >?That in itself was a terrific self-referential self-parody play-along-with-the-gag on the part of Twitter. Or rather it would be, if we could be completely sure that Twitter really was intending to make fun of itself. I have nagging doubts. >?How do you read that? >?spike If Twitter did this as an intentional comedic self-own, I applaud their being good sports. Here?s the video: https://twitter.com/i/status/1518619709352161296 Twitter flagged it as sensitive content. Heh. Question: was this a human Twitterer who was having some fun at his own expense, or did the Twitterithms flag it? If Musk manages to buy Twitter, he will make the Twitterithms public, and we will find out. Otherwise? the software stay hidden. It is hard to miss: conventional wisdom held that Twitter cannot possibly influence elections. Until this week. Now it can. Couldn?t before, can now. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 01:37:21 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:37:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001f01d85b69$ac288520$04798f60$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat >...As you will remember in 1984, Winston Smith works at The Ministry of Truth, rewriting history to suit Big Brother?s narrative. Now he will be rewriting 'misinformation' that the US government disapproves of. BillK _______________________________________________ David French is a political commentator who warned of what was announced today the formation of the Ministry of Truth. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 16510 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 01:39:25 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:39:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <001f01d85b69$ac288520$04798f60$@rainier66.com> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> <001f01d85b69$ac288520$04798f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002701d85b69$f5d9e060$e18da120$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com _______________________________________________ David French is a political commentator who warned of what was announced today the formation of the Ministry of Truth. Spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6933 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 01:43:42 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 18:43:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <001f01d85b69$ac288520$04798f60$@rainier66.com> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <00c801d85b2e$9204a1f0$b60de5d0$@rainier66.com> <001f01d85b69$ac288520$04798f60$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <002d01d85b6a$8f4a1e90$adde5bb0$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com >...As you will remember in 1984, Winston Smith works at The Ministry of Truth, rewriting history to suit Big Brother?s narrative. Now he will be rewriting 'misinformation' that the US government disapproves of. BillK _______________________________________________ Twitter users are reporting getting a sudden surge of replies and responses to comments they posted weeks ago. What do you suppose is going on there? Twitter employees burning the evidence? Or getting a sudden change of heart? Or evidence of the shadow-banning we kept hearing evidence was taking place? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7579 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Apr 29 03:00:01 2022 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 20:00:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? Message-ID: <20220428200001.Horde.qWXOhdfGoMnH54ql0v8vpz7@sollegro.com> Quoting Colin Hales: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 5:04 PM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> ### How about you give me a mechanistic explanation for how an "EM field >> process" can process a few hundred million streams of bits that it takes to >> create the conscious experience of hearing a sound? No hand waving about >> Lorentz force, lol. >> >> ---------------------------------- >> >>> >>> The 'hardware' of the brain and the computer is based on atoms. Both are >>> 100% EM from the scale of atoms up. A rock is an EM object. Chemical is EM. >>> All 'information' in the brain is encoded in, literally IS, EM phenomena. >>> There is nothing else there in space but EM. 'Long-distance communication' >>> is an EM phenomenon. 'Electric current' is a transit of an EM field through >>> space. The difference between the brain and a computer/heart/liver is in >>> how the EM is organized. All these things are 100% EM from the atoms up. >>> The gigantic amount of information encoded in the literal structure of the >>> brain's EM field system (that pervades the tissue) has no analogue in any >>> general-purpose computer and has no role in any models of brain function >>> (yet) that exist in computer models.. "To 'be' the EM field system >>> impressed on space by a brain is to be conscious" is almost trivially true >>> because there is nothing else to choose from. >>> >> >> ### Complete woo-woo. >> >> One more reason I know that it's woo-woo is because I know that the brain >> is not perturbed by externally applied electric fields of similar or higher >> intensity than EEG. If you clench your teeth, the whole brain is bathed in >> the chaotic EM fields generated by your masticatory muscles. These muscle >> artifacts are something you can see on EEG and they completely swamp the >> much weaker EM signals in the brain. If the brain's consciousness was >> encoded in its bulk EM field, every time you chewed an apple you would pass >> out, because your brain EM field would be completely altered by the muscle >> artifact. Since I don't pass out from chewing, I know the bulk EM field of >> the brain does not carry my consciousness. >> >> Rafal >> > > > The EEG and MEG are tiny residual scalp fields from tissue originating 1cm > away from scalp. Of course they are messed up by muscle artefacts (scalp, > facial and heart). The actual fields in the brain tissue, that originate > the EEG, are inside the membrane, are many orders of magnitude stronger. > Transmembrane electric field dynamics (1cm away) are 10,000,000 volts/m > and that can completely reverse in direction. Muscle artefacts is totally > irrelevant there. > > Everything I have said is straight out of the standard model of particle > physics, and then interpreted based on my having a PHD in brain > electromagnetism. > > I am clearly in the wrong place to engage these issues. Apologies. I'll > leave it there. Not at all, Colin. Please continue and do not let Rafal's criticisms dissuade you. Your argument for EM fields is not completely without merit, since even in systems as simple as electrical wires attached to a power source, the energy (and therefore information) is transmitted not through the current in the wire but through the EM field on the outside of the wire. That being said, it means that EM fields would apply equally to intelligent computers and organic brains. While I believe you and Rafal are debating mechanisms of consciousness, I prefer to speak in terms of intelligence rather than consciousness. Since one is discernible by observation of learning while the other is not. The difference is subtle thus I have surprised surgeons by recognizing them after operations where they did not even come into the operating room until after I was anesthetized and supposedly unconscious. One could easily imagine a scenario where someone in a coma could be aware of everything going on around them and be unable to react. My point is that the problem of consciousness is ill-defined. The whole universe could be made of sentient computronium and philosopher stones, i.e. rocks with deep thoughts that can't talk, and we won't realize it because we don't speak their language. I have entertained the notion that EEG brainwaves could be some sort of "carrier wave" and even looked up several papers where Fourier analysis were performed on EEGs looking for some pattern and could not find anything worth mentioning. The biggest problem that I have with the EM field mediating intelligence or consciousness is that my own studies into the mathematics of neural networks indicate that learning is mediated multiplication of high-dimensional tensors divided into "layers", and the more layers, the deeper the AI. EM fields are governed by quantum mechanics and therefore linear and subject to an unlimited additive property. That is to say that any number of wave functions may be added together to make a new wave function. On the other hand, the most important element of the neural networks are neurons that are characterized by non-linear activation functions. The necessity of the non-linearity of the activation function is that if neurons have a linear activation function, they cannot be organized into separate "layers" and instead all act as one giant layer and a single layer is quite stupid no matter how large. Therefore the sum of quantum fields or other waves do seem mathematically able to exhibit observable intelligence, whereas the sum of non-linear neurons do. I suspect that is why Sir Roger Penrose's Orch-OR theory needed quantum gravity to work . . . because Quantum Mechanics is completely linear whereas gravity and Einstein's General Relativity is non-linear. He needed to get the non-linearity from somewhere. In any case, I disagree with both you and Rafal. You think EM fields mediate consiousness, Rafal thinks that synaptic organization and transmission via ions and neurotransmitters mediate consciousness. I think that consciousness is a complex recursive mathematical function on tensor-space mediated by sparse synaptic connections between non-linearly activated neurons. I think we all would benefit from keeping the conversation going. Stuart LaForge From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 04:45:59 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:45:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 5:35 AM Colin Hales wrote: > >> The EEG and MEG are tiny residual scalp fields from tissue originating > 1cm away from scalp. Of course they are messed up by muscle artefacts > (scalp, facial and heart). The actual fields in the brain tissue, that > originate the EEG, are inside the membrane, are many orders of magnitude > stronger. Transmembrane electric field dynamics (1cm away) are 10,000,000 > volts/m and that can completely reverse in direction. Muscle artefacts is > totally irrelevant there. > ### Well, previously you wrote about the "global" EM field of the brain and the "EM field that pervades the tissue" as the locus of consciousness, and you never mentioned the transmembrane electric field until now. The peer-reviewed reference you used was about propagation of global EM waves in brain slices, not about transmembrane field dynamics. EEG, whether measured on the scalp or through implanted electrodes (iEEG) is the measure of the global field and yes, it is swamped by muscle artifact and yes, the global EM field's ability to encode consciousness is eliminated by muscle artifact and by other minor electromagnetic interference, just as I said. If you now switch to talking about transmembrane electric field dynamics, it's a completely different argument. Obviously, EM fields at the level of axonal, dendritic and neuron body membrane encode many (6? 8?) orders of magnitude more information than the global EM fields of the brain and yes, they are a large part of the informational aspects of brain function that I previously outlined. You need to make up your mind what argument you want to defend. -------------------------------- > > Everything I have said is straight out of the standard model of particle > physics, and then interpreted based on my having a PHD in brain > electromagnetism. > ### You are an expert then? Great, it should be easy for you to outline a detailed, mechanistic and quantitative argument for how the global EM field encodes consciousness. -------------------------------- > > I am clearly in the wrong place to engage these issues. Apologies. I'll > leave it there. > ### To the contrary, on this list you *are* very welcome to provide a rigorous statement of your position with references to relevant peer-reviewed literature. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 05:00:05 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:00:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: Though Atlas Shrugged is not very good fiction and the characters are caricatures, it is an addictive page turner. I never cared much for Rand's version of libertarianism, which is a caricature like her characters. But in today's very anti-libertarian culture, reading Atlas Shrugged is refreshing and needed. On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 8:04 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat wrote: > > I have heard mention of Ayn Rand?s works, particularly Atlas Shrugged, on this list and other places. I have not read it myself, but am interested in your all?s thoughts on the book. The book seems to be very polarizing, with some loathing it and others praising it. I come mostly from a libertarian perspective and am curious as to the potential pitfalls of the book and what may be learned by reading it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 05:27:30 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 22:27:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat >...But in today's very anti-libertarian culture, reading Atlas Shrugged is refreshing and needed. Giulio Ja thanks. Giulio how did it happen? And is it happening in Europe the same as in USA? It was recent that both mainstream US parties would gently coax the libertarians, using different strategies but neither wanted to alienate libertarians, for fear they would vote for the other mainstream party rather than their own. Now... both mainstream parties in some ways seem to be working to alienate libertarians. It wasn't such a big deal until just recently, for the libertarians were irrelevant. But now that the richest guy on the planet is a libertarian and wants to establish free speech in America, it seems the government is losing its collective mind. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 05:35:36 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:35:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:57 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I agree it doesn't seem like passive/idle information is conscious. Any > string of information could be interpreted in any of an infinite number of > ways. > > This shows that something must *happen* in physical >> reality for consciousness to exist. >> > > I think while something must happen, I am open to viewing it more > generally: there must be counterfactual relations: "if this, then that," > but also: "if not this, then not that." This is something all recordings > lack but all live instances of information processing possess. > ### What if you had a record of the detailed states of a large algorithmic process as it was responding to inputs, for example a detailed, synapse-by-synapse model of a human brain verbally describing a visual input. Let's posit that the digital model was validated as being able to respond to real-human-life inputs with verbal and motor responses indistinguishable from actual human responses, so we might see it as a human mind upload. Let's also posit that the visual input is not real-time, instead it is a file that is stored inside the input/output routines that accompany the synaptic model. Is this register-by-register and time-step by time-step record of synaptic and axonal activity conscious when stored in RAM? In a book? Or does consciousness happen only as you run the synaptic model processing the input file on a digital computer that actually dissipates energy and does physical things as it creates the mathematical representations of synapses? And what if you run the same synaptic model on two computers? Is the consciousness double? Is there something special about dissipation of energy, or about causal processes that add something special to the digital, mathematical entities represented by such processes? I struggle to understand what is happening. I have a feeling that two instances of a simple and pure mathematical entity (a triangle or an equation) under consideration by two mathematicians are one and the same but then two pure mathematical entities that purport to reflect a mind (like the synapse-level model of a brain) being run on two computers are separate and presumably independently conscious. Something doesn't fit here. Maybe there is something special about the physical world that imbues models of mathematical entities contained in the physical world with a different level of existence from the Platonic ideal level. Or maybe different areas of the Platonic world are imbued with different properties, such as consciousness, even as they copy other parts of the Platonic world. Maybe what matters is that the physical representations of mathematical entities are subject to the limits of physics, even for the simplest mathematical objects we can imagine. Since two mathematicians thinking about squares, or two computers running the same program, can in principle diverge at any point because of physical imperfections imposed on them by the uncertainty inherent in any physical, quantum physics process, and so they are different even when they repeat identical mathematical steps. In this way quantum uncertainty would play into consciousness, although in a very trivial, tautological fashion. What do you think about it? Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 05:49:04 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:49:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: <20220428200001.Horde.qWXOhdfGoMnH54ql0v8vpz7@sollegro.com> References: <20220428200001.Horde.qWXOhdfGoMnH54ql0v8vpz7@sollegro.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 11:02 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > The biggest problem that I have with the EM field mediating > intelligence or consciousness is that my own studies into the > mathematics of neural networks indicate that learning is mediated > multiplication of high-dimensional tensors divided into "layers", and > the more layers, the deeper the AI. EM fields are governed by quantum > mechanics and therefore linear and subject to an unlimited additive > property. That is to say that any number of wave functions may be > added together to make a new wave function. > > On the other hand, the most important element of the neural networks > are neurons that are characterized by non-linear activation functions. > The necessity of the non-linearity of the activation function is that > if neurons have a linear activation function, they cannot be organized > into separate "layers" and instead all act as one giant layer and a > single layer is quite stupid no matter how large. Therefore the sum of > quantum fields or other waves do seem mathematically able to exhibit > observable intelligence, whereas the sum of non-linear neurons do. > ### Yes, absolutely. (I think you meant "the sum of quantum fields or other waves do NOT seem mathematically able to exhibit observable intelligence"). ---------------- > > In any case, I disagree with both you and Rafal. You think EM fields > mediate consiousness, Rafal thinks that synaptic organization and > transmission via ions and neurotransmitters mediate consciousness. I > think that consciousness is a complex recursive mathematical function > on tensor-space mediated by sparse synaptic connections between > non-linearly activated neurons. ### I don't think you disagree with me :) I think we can both agree on the following: Synaptic organization and transmission via ions and neurotransmitters that involve sparse synaptic connections between non-linearly activated neurons is how the brain implements complex recursive mathematical function on tensor-space, which enables intelligence, and which, one might hypothesize, has something to do with consciousness. You and I just pointed to different levels of this integrated process. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 05:52:46 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:52:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:28 AM spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat > > > >...But in today's very anti-libertarian culture, reading Atlas Shrugged is refreshing and needed. Giulio > > > Ja thanks. Giulio how did it happen? And is it happening in Europe the same as in USA? It was recent that both mainstream US parties would gently coax the libertarians, using different strategies but neither wanted to alienate libertarians, for fear they would vote for the other mainstream party rather than their own. Now... both mainstream parties in some ways seem to be working to alienate libertarians. > > It wasn't such a big deal until just recently, for the libertarians were irrelevant. But now that the richest guy on the planet is a libertarian and wants to establish free speech in America, it seems the government is losing its collective mind. > In Europe it is even worse. At least in the US you have a healthy libertarian tradition in politics and culture, a healthy libertarian tradition that has a lot of inertia and is difficult to eliminate completely. We don't even have that. I love what Musk is doing but I'm afraid it is too little too late. They have taken our liberties gradually, silently, step by step, one by one, and we have been so stupid to let them. I'm afraid the US and Europe are history. Let's see how China develops in a few decades. If I were a young man, I would be learning Chinese. > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 06:15:14 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 02:15:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:56 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I love what Musk is doing but I'm afraid it is too little too late. > They have taken our liberties gradually, silently, step by step, one > by one, and we have been so stupid to let them. I'm afraid the US and > Europe are history. Let's see how China develops in a few decades. If > I were a young man, I would be learning Chinese. ### If the Chinese keep doing their Communist Chinese stuff, China will be a footnote in less than a century. Communism is inherently friendly to evil, evil causes depravity and depravity is very expensive. Chicoms took their boot off Chinese peoples' throats a little bit in 1978 and China bounced back from the abyss, and even prospered. Now the boot comes down hard again, and the body count and economic losses rise. This said, we the (still) free people need to be alert for the communists in our midst. I propose re-education camps for communists, the woke, social media censorship advocates, Ministry of Truth employees and other enemies of the people, to be built in the frozen wilderness of Alaska, modeled after the Uighur camps the Chicoms built in Xinjiang. Long live Elon! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 06:28:54 2022 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:28:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 8:16 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:56 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat wrote: >> >> >> I love what Musk is doing but I'm afraid it is too little too late. >> They have taken our liberties gradually, silently, step by step, one >> by one, and we have been so stupid to let them. I'm afraid the US and >> Europe are history. Let's see how China develops in a few decades. If >> I were a young man, I would be learning Chinese. > > > ### If the Chinese keep doing their Communist Chinese stuff, China will be a footnote in less than a century. Communism is inherently friendly to evil, evil causes depravity and depravity is very expensive. Chicoms took their boot off Chinese peoples' throats a little bit in 1978 and China bounced back from the abyss, and even prospered. Now the boot comes down hard again, and the body count and economic losses rise. > > This said, we the (still) free people need to be alert for the communists in our midst. > > I propose re-education camps for communists, the woke, social media censorship advocates, Ministry of Truth employees and other enemies of the people, to be built in the frozen wilderness of Alaska, modeled after the Uighur camps the Chicoms built in Xinjiang. > Better in the even more frozen and airless wilderness of Mars. That would be one more valid reason to build those Mars colonies soon. > Long live Elon! > Long live Elon indeed! I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 06:43:20 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 02:43:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:29 AM Giulio Prisco wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 8:16 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat > wrote: > > > > I propose re-education camps for communists, the woke, social media > censorship advocates, Ministry of Truth employees and other enemies of the > people, to be built in the frozen wilderness of Alaska, modeled after the > Uighur camps the Chicoms built in Xinjiang. > > > > Better in the even more frozen and airless wilderness of Mars. That > would be one more valid reason to build those Mars colonies soon. > > ### Mars the RED Planet! Brilliant! Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 13:31:00 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:31:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 1:36 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:57 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> I agree it doesn't seem like passive/idle information is conscious. Any >> string of information could be interpreted in any of an infinite number of >> ways. >> >> This shows that something must *happen* in physical >>> reality for consciousness to exist. >>> >> >> I think while something must happen, I am open to viewing it more >> generally: there must be counterfactual relations: "if this, then that," >> but also: "if not this, then not that." This is something all recordings >> lack but all live instances of information processing possess. >> > > ### What if you had a record of the detailed states of a large algorithmic > process as it was responding to inputs, for example a detailed, > synapse-by-synapse model of a human brain verbally describing a visual > input. Let's posit that the digital model was validated as being able to > respond to real-human-life inputs with verbal and motor responses > indistinguishable from actual human responses, so we might see it as a > human mind upload. Let's also posit that the visual input is not real-time, > instead it is a file that is stored inside the input/output routines that > accompany the synaptic model. > > Is this register-by-register and time-step by time-step record of synaptic > and axonal activity conscious when stored in RAM? In a book? > A record, even a highly detailed one as you describe, I don't believe is conscious. For if you alter any bit/bits in that record, say the bits representing visual information sent from the optic nerves, none of those changes are reflected in any of the neuron states downstream from that modification, so in what sense are they consciousness of other information, or the firing of neighboring neurons, or the visual data coming in, etc. within the representation? There is no response to any change and so I conclude there is no awareness of any of that information. This is why I think counterfactuals are necessary. If you make a relevant change to the inputs, that change must be reflected in the right ways throughout the rest of the system, otherwise you aren't dealing with something that has the right functional relations and organizations. If no other bits change, then you're dealing with a bit string that is a record only, it is devoid of all functional relations. There's a thought experiment about this called the filmed graph argument by Bruno Marchal and also one by Tim Mauldin called the Mount Olympia thought experiment. They reach different conclusions so both are worth analyzing. Or does consciousness happen only as you run the synaptic model processing > the input file on a digital computer that actually dissipates energy and > does physical things as it creates the mathematical representations of > synapses? > I don't think "running" is the right word either, as relativity reveals objective time as an illusion. So we must accept the plausibility of consciousness in timeless four dimensionalism. It then must be the structure of relations and counterfactuals implied by laws (whether they be physical or mathematical or some other physics in some other universe) that are necessary for consciousness. And what if you run the same synaptic model on two computers? Is the > consciousness double? > Nick Bostrom has a paper arguing that it does create a duplicate with more "weight", Arnold Zuboff argues for a position called Unificationism in which there is only one unique mind even if run twice, and there's no change in its "weight". If reality is infinite and all possible minds and conscious experiences exist, then if Unificationism is true we should expect to be experiencing a totally random (think snow on a TV) kind of experience now, since there's so many more random than ordered unique conscious experiences. Zuboff uses this to argue that reality is not infinite. But if you believe reality is infinite it can be used as a basis to reject Unificationism. Is there something special about dissipation of energy, > This is just a reflection of the fact that in physics, information is conserved. If you overwrite/erase a bit in a computer memory, that bit has to go somewhere. In practice, for our current computers, it is leaked into the environment and this requires leaking energy into the environment as implied by the Landauer limit. But if no information is erased/overwritten, which is possible to do in reversible computers (and is in fact necessary in quantum computers), then you can compute without dissipating any energy at all. So I conclude dissipating energy is unrelated to computation or consciousness. or about causal processes that add something special to the digital, > mathematical entities represented by such processes? > The causality (though I would say relations since causality itself is poorly understood and poorly defined) is key, I think. If you study a bit of cryptography (see "one time pad" encryption) you can come to understand why any bit string can have any meaning. It is therefore meaningless without the context of it's interpreter. So to be "informative" we need both information and a system to be informed by or otherwise interpret that information. Neither by itself is sufficient. > I struggle to understand what is happening. I have a feeling that two > instances of a simple and pure mathematical entity (a triangle or an > equation) under consideration by two mathematicians are one and the same > but then two pure mathematical entities that purport to reflect a mind > (like the synapse-level model of a brain) being run on two computers are > separate and presumably independently conscious. Something doesn't fit > here. > The problem you are referencing is the distinction between types and tokens. A type is something like "Moby Dick", of which there is only one uniquely defined type which is that story. A token is any concrete instance of a given type. For example any particular book of Moby Dick is a token of the type Moby Dick. I think you may be asking: should we think of minds as types or tokens? I think a particular mind at a particular point in time (one "observer-moment") can be thought of as a type. But across an infinite universe that mind state or observer moment may have many, (perhaps an infinite number of) different tokens -- different instantiations in terms of different brains or computers with uploaded minds -- representing that type. So two instances of the same mind being run on two different computers are independently conscious in the sense that turning either one off doesn't destroy the type, even if one token is destroyed, just as the story of Moby Dick isn't destroyed if one book is lost. The open question to me is: does running two copies increase the likelihood of finding oneself in that mind state? This is the Unificationism/Duplicationism debate. Maybe there is something special about the physical world that imbues > models of mathematical entities contained in the physical world with a > different level of existence from the Platonic ideal level. > We can't rule out, (especially given all the other fine-tuning coincidences we observe), that our physics has a special property necessary for consciousness, but I tend to not think so, given all the problems entailed by philosophical zombies and zombie worlds -- where we have philosophers of mind and books about consciousness and exact copies of the conversations such as in this thread, being written by entities in a universe that has no conscious. This idea just doesn't seem coherent to me. Or maybe different areas of the Platonic world are imbued with different > properties, such as consciousness, even as they copy other parts of the > Platonic world. > As Bruno Marchal points out in his filmed graph thought experiment, if one accepts mechanism (a.k.a. functionalism, or computationalism), this implies that platonically existing number relations and computations are sufficient for consciousness. Therefore consciousness is in a sense more fundamental than the physical worlds we experience. The physics in a sense, drops out as the consistent extensions of the infinite indistinguishable computations defining a particular observer's current mind state. This is explored in detail by Markus P Mueller, in his paper on deriving laws of physics from algorithmic information theory. He is able to predict from these first principles that most observers should find themselves to be in a universe having simple, but probabilistic laws, with time, and a point in the past beyond which further retrodiction is impossible. Indeed we find this to be true of our own physics and universe. I cover this subject in some detail in my "Why does anything exist?" article (on AlwaysAsking.com ). I am currently working on an article about consciousness. The two questions are quite interrelated. > Maybe what matters is that the physical representations of mathematical > entities are subject to the limits of physics, even for the simplest > mathematical objects we can imagine. Since two mathematicians thinking > about squares, or two computers running the same program, can in principle > diverge at any point because of physical imperfections imposed on them by > the uncertainty inherent in any physical, quantum physics process, and so > they are different even when they repeat identical mathematical steps. > Markus Mueller reaches a similar conclusion, saying that computer simulations of observers may become "probaballistic zombies" unless we feed in information about our world into that simulation. I've seen others argue we should maybe feed in quantum noise/randomness into the simulations of uploaded minds, in case that somehow effects their measure it the diversity of experience for that mind. This feeds into the Unificationism/Duplicationism debate. In this way quantum uncertainty would play into consciousness, although in > a very trivial, tautological fashion. > I think quantum mechanics and consciousness are related but not in the ways normally described. Some, like Penrose, say quantum mechanics explains consciousness. I think it is the other way around: Consciousness explains quantum mechanics. Russell Standish talks about this in his book "Theory of Nothing" and his paper, "Why Occam's Razor?". In short, it is the infinite set of observer states which can diverge upon exposure to new information/observations that produces our quantum mechanical view. This is not unlike the Many Minds interpretation of QM, but with mechanism+Platonism we have an answer to "where do the infinite pre-existing minds come from?" Which was an open question for the many minds view. > What do you think about it? > I appreciate your thinking and questions on these topics. They're deep and lead to some of the most fundamental and relevant questions of our time. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 14:13:50 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 09:13:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Communism is inherently friendly to evil, rafal In psychology we have Carl Rogers, humanistic psych, raising kids with unconditional positive regard. It is said that no one has ever raised a kid like that,and so the usefulness of the idea is essentially untested. It might really work. Now Marx - I have not read anything he wrote, except for a few things like 'from all according to their assets and to those according to their needs'. But could it be true that no country has practiced Marxism just the way Marx outlined it? My strong opinion is that it would not work because people are deeply into and won't give up private property unless forced. Have all the Marxist countries strayed from Marxist ideals? Is there, according to Rafal, a necessary link between Marxism and evil? Has any country practiced true Marxism? bill w On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:17 AM Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:56 AM Giulio Prisco via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> I love what Musk is doing but I'm afraid it is too little too late. >> They have taken our liberties gradually, silently, step by step, one >> by one, and we have been so stupid to let them. I'm afraid the US and >> Europe are history. Let's see how China develops in a few decades. If >> I were a young man, I would be learning Chinese. > > > ### If the Chinese keep doing their Communist Chinese stuff, China will be > a footnote in less than a century. Communism is inherently friendly to > evil, evil causes depravity and depravity is very expensive. Chicoms took > their boot off Chinese peoples' throats a little bit in 1978 and China > bounced back from the abyss, and even prospered. Now the boot comes down > hard again, and the body count and economic losses rise. > > This said, we the (still) free people need to be alert for the communists > in our midst. > > I propose re-education camps for communists, the woke, social media > censorship advocates, Ministry of Truth employees and other enemies of the > people, to be built in the frozen wilderness of Alaska, modeled after the > Uighur camps the Chicoms built in Xinjiang. > > Long live Elon! > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 15:51:32 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:51:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun Message-ID: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> As you might guess, the Babylon Bee is having a good week. This whole Twitter business causes one to think. Twitter can flag a post for sensitive content and if a prole keeps breaking the rules, she can get permanently banned. But she can go to another internet social medium with a fresh slate and start raising hell over there. OK then, what if. a government gives itself the power to flag a prole's posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 86003 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 16:14:42 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 11:14:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything? spike I suspect that we will see a lot of free speech lawsuits. bill w On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:54 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > As you might guess, the Babylon Bee is having a good week. > > > > > > > > > > This whole Twitter business causes one to think. Twitter can flag a post > for sensitive content and if a prole keeps breaking the rules, she can get > permanently banned. But she can go to another internet social medium with > a fresh slate and start raising hell over there. > > > > OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a prole?s > posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from > everything? > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 86003 bytes Desc: not available URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 17:01:30 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:01:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 9:33 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > I appreciate your thinking and questions on these topics. They're deep and > lead to some of the most fundamental and relevant questions of our time. > What you explained of type and token reminded me of class and object in computer science. I have considered this consciousness question, but it feels like requisite enabling technology is still lacking for us to be able to convey meaning. AI seems like a useful tool inasmuch as it helps us determine where to look next for clues. It'll be even cooler when a conscious-seeming AI joins the discussion with novel insights. :) A cube can cast a shadow that is a square. A cube also casts a shadow that is a hexagon. Consciousness is a higher dimensional construct casting a lower dimensional shadow that we're trying to understand much as Plato's cave dwellers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 17:10:24 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:10:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 16:54, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > As you might guess, the Babylon Bee is having a good week. > > This whole Twitter business causes one to think. Twitter can flag a post for sensitive content and if a prole keeps breaking the rules, she can get permanently banned. But she can go to another internet social medium with a fresh slate and start raising hell over there. > > OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything? > spike > _______________________________________________ I heard that Musk was planning to ban anyone that disagreed with his free speech plans........;) BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 17:59:16 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:59:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] new neuron learning theory Message-ID: https://neurosciencenews.com/dendrite-learning-20492/ 'This changes everything' is trite, but maybe true here. Notice that AIs are programmed according to the old theory of strengthened synapses. Maybe that will change. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 18:50:23 2022 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:50:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] new neuron learning theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perceptron-style "neurons" were a simplified caricature of how neurologists thought neurons /might/ work back in the 70s, even when they were first implemented. Time and neurological research hasn't been kind to the comparison. At this point, the only similarity between the basic elements of network-based machine learning algorithms and mammalian brain cells is the name. ML "neurons" are basically pure mathematical abstractions, completely unmoored from anything biological cells actually do. On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:01 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > https://neurosciencenews.com/dendrite-learning-20492/ > > 'This changes everything' is trite, but maybe true here. Notice that AIs > are programmed according to the old theory of strengthened synapses. Maybe > that will change. 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 gadersd at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 19:36:15 2022 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Hermes Trismegistus) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:36:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com>, Message-ID: <0A7D8AC0-216C-4A13-938F-56518A504037@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 19:55:03 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:55:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >>?OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything? spike >?I suspect that we will see a lot of free speech lawsuits. bill w So? we can expect a future where we can have access to the internet cancelled until we sue the government to let us post? And the head of the Ministry of Truth tells us that the Russian dossier is real and the Hunter Biden laptop is fake? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 20:00:23 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 15:00:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Well, Spike, we can play the 'what-if' game endlessly, but I think that such a thing, whatever it is called, will die aborning. ACLU will have a psychotic episode and pull strings and fille suits. Side question: if we do get such an evil thing, where could we move? bill w On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:57 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] bee having fun > > > > >>?OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a > prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole > from everything? spike > > > > >?I suspect that we will see a lot of free speech lawsuits. bill w > > > > So? we can expect a future where we can have access to the internet > cancelled until we sue the government to let us post? And the head of the > Ministry of Truth tells us that the Russian dossier is real and the Hunter > Biden laptop is fake? > > 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 jasonresch at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 20:28:08 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:28:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 1:01 PM Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 9:33 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> I appreciate your thinking and questions on these topics. They're deep >> and lead to some of the most fundamental and relevant questions of our time. >> > > What you explained of type and token reminded me of class and object in > computer science. > It is very similar, though classes may have different internal properties between in each instance. Though I suppose this is also true of types and tokens. Like the letter 'A' is a type, of which there are many instances in this sentence, some might be upper or lower case but each if them is perfectly 'a'. Or the various tokens of US dollars might come in bill or coin form. > I have considered this consciousness question, but it feels like > requisite enabling technology is still lacking for us to be able to convey > meaning. > Do you mean we don't have devices today that understand meaning? What do you think of this device's ability to translate verbal descriptions into images: https://youtu.be/U1cF9QCu1rQ ? Is that a task that can be completed without understanding meaning? > AI seems like a useful tool inasmuch as it helps us determine where to > look next for clues. It'll be even cooler when a conscious-seeming AI > joins the discussion with novel insights. :) > Indeed, and it doesn't seem like that day is far off. > A cube can cast a shadow that is a square. > A cube also casts a shadow that is a hexagon. > > Consciousness is a higher dimensional construct casting a lower > dimensional shadow that we're trying to understand much as Plato's cave > dwellers. > Something of that sort might partly explain the difficulties trying to verbally explain a qualia. Since we communicate audibly, describing a color using what are, after all, "just sounds" (speech), might be like trying to explain a sound in terms of smell, or a feeling in terms of a taste. These various qualia spaces corresponding to our different senses can have different dimensionality, or otherwise don't commute. Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 20:32:51 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:32:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006c01d85c08$4cb9d310$e62d7930$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat >>... OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything? > spike > _______________________________________________ >...I heard that Musk was planning to ban anyone that disagreed with his free speech plans........;) BillK _______________________________________________ {8^D If you read what Musk says he wants to do with Twitter, he never said anything about taking down or turning off content filters. All he said in his statement is about that is to make the filtering algorithm public. Think on this please. Those suggesting that Musk's ownership of Twitter is a bad thing are arguing in favor of keeping the filtering algorithm secret. This is suggesting that secrecy in this context is a good thing and by extension, that unaccountable power is a good thing. Alternative interpretations please? Anyone here wish to argue that unaccountable power is a good thing? Do elaborate please. spike From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 20:36:09 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:36:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >?Well, Spike, we can play the 'what-if' game endlessly, but I think that such a thing, whatever it is called, will die aborning. ACLU will have a psychotic episode and pull strings and fille suits. Side question: if we do get such an evil thing, where could we move? bill w Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t need to move. They do. spike On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:57 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >>?OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything? spike >?I suspect that we will see a lot of free speech lawsuits. bill w So? we can expect a future where we can have access to the internet cancelled until we sue the government to let us post? And the head of the Ministry of Truth tells us that the Russian dossier is real and the Hunter Biden laptop is fake? 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 msd001 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 20:52:08 2022 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:52:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 4:30 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > Something of that sort might partly explain the difficulties trying to > verbally explain a qualia. Since we communicate audibly, describing a color > using what are, after all, "just sounds" (speech), might be like trying to > explain a sound in terms of smell, or a feeling in terms of a taste. These > various qualia spaces corresponding to our different senses can have > different dimensionality, or otherwise don't commute. > Tastes like purple You mean grape? No, I mean the cheap purple food coloring in knockoff Otter Pops Synesthesia is going to make eating your words much more interesting :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 21:01:08 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:01:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t need to move. They do. spike AGreed, - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech will happen here? I don't. Anyway, no one has a right to have their posts on any medium I know of posted uncensored. All are private companies and can censor anyone they want to (barring racism, sexism....laws already on the books). Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms? Should they? bill w On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:41 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] bee having fun > > > > >?Well, Spike, we can play the 'what-if' game endlessly, but I think that > such a thing, whatever it is called, will die aborning. ACLU will have a > psychotic episode and pull strings and fille suits. Side question: if we > do get such an evil thing, where could we move? bill w > > > > > > > > Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t need to > move. They do. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:57 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] bee having fun > > > > >>?OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a > prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole > from everything? spike > > > > >?I suspect that we will see a lot of free speech lawsuits. bill w > > > > So? we can expect a future where we can have access to the internet > cancelled until we sue the government to let us post? And the head of the > Ministry of Truth tells us that the Russian dossier is real and the Hunter > Biden laptop is fake? > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Fri Apr 29 21:39:52 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 14:39:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >>?Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t need to move. They do. spike >?AGreed, - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech will happen here? Depends on how you look at it. The right to free speech means the federal government cannot prosecute citizens for their speech. There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. >? Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms? Should they? bill w If it doesn?t say so in the constitution, the government does not have the right. So no to both questions. The more interesting part to me is that Musk is buying Twitter at enormous cost saying nothing about modifying or changing the filtering algorithms. He is only saying he will make them public domain. It has become the biggest debate topic in some time, which is remarkable in itself. Is there a legitimate reason, or even a logical illegitimate reason for stopping a guy from buying social media in order to make its filtering algorithm public? Plenty of the public seem to think it is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing for a social medium to tell them something? How can it be argued that it is a bad thing for a company deciding to now offer you something which it didn?t give you before? The company is not forcing you to look at the filtering algorithms, ja? So? making those algorithms public cannot possibly harm anyone, ja? But it can certainly satisfy some long-standing curiosity so some can benefit. So? why is there any debate? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 21:49:44 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:49:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. spike I don't get this. Whadda mean, we paid for it? The internet? We paid for fighter jets too, but don't have the right to fly them. What sort of right do you mean? bill w On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 4:42 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] bee having fun > > > > > >>?Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t > need to move. They do. spike > > > > >?AGreed, - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech > will happen here? > > > > Depends on how you look at it. The right to free speech means the federal > government cannot prosecute citizens for their speech. There is an > interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done > primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for > that, so we have a right to it. > > > > >? Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms? Should > they? bill w > > > > If it doesn?t say so in the constitution, the government does not have the > right. So no to both questions. > > > > The more interesting part to me is that Musk is buying Twitter at enormous > cost saying nothing about modifying or changing the filtering algorithms. > He is only saying he will make them public domain. It has become the > biggest debate topic in some time, which is remarkable in itself. > > > > Is there a legitimate reason, or even a logical illegitimate reason for > stopping a guy from buying social media in order to make its filtering > algorithm public? > > > > Plenty of the public seem to think it is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing > for a social medium to tell them something? How can it be argued that it > is a bad thing for a company deciding to now offer you something which it > didn?t give you before? The company is not forcing you to look at the > filtering algorithms, ja? So? making those algorithms public cannot > possibly harm anyone, ja? But it can certainly satisfy some long-standing > curiosity so some can benefit. So? why is there any debate? > > > > 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 gadersd at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 21:56:00 2022 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Hermes Trismegistus) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:56:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com>, Message-ID: <53BA112B-22F4-4A3A-8372-430FB07FAFC2@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gadersd at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 21:59:23 2022 From: gadersd at gmail.com (Hermes Trismegistus) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:59:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <002201d85b34$162e7500$428b5f00$@rainier66.com> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> , <002201d85b34$162e7500$428b5f00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 22:35:22 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 23:35:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <53BA112B-22F4-4A3A-8372-430FB07FAFC2@hxcore.ol> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> <53BA112B-22F4-4A3A-8372-430FB07FAFC2@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 at 22:58, Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat wrote: > > I?m planning on moving to Europe soon. Which countries in Europe do you think are the most libertarian friendly? I had planned on going to Portugal because of generous economic incentives, but I am open to others as well especially if the culture is more aligned with libertarianism. > _______________________________________________ Europeans generally don't use the term libertarian. Liberals will probably be approximately equivalent. Remember that European countries don't have English as their first language. (Except for UK). But because of tourism and USA contact, spoken English is usually understood by most people. Though written documents will be in their own language. I always enjoyed my visits to Portugal. I see they have a newish Liberal political party which looks promising. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 23:43:02 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:43:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <006c01d85c08$4cb9d310$e62d7930$@rainier66.com> References: <006c01d85c08$4cb9d310$e62d7930$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <75F727AA-CE74-4EB5-8ABE-E7B1B45AECE0@gmail.com> On Apr 29, 2022, at 1:35 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat > >>> ... OK then, what if? a government gives itself the power to flag a prole?s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything? >> spike >> _________________________________________ >> ...I heard that Musk was planning to ban anyone that disagreed with his free speech plans........;) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > > {8^D > > If you read what Musk says he wants to do with Twitter, he never said anything about taking down or turning off content filters. All he said in his statement is about that is to make the filtering algorithm public. > > Think on this please. > > Those suggesting that Musk's ownership of Twitter is a bad thing are arguing in favor of keeping the filtering algorithm secret. This is suggesting that secrecy in this context is a good thing and by extension, that unaccountable power is a good thing. > > Alternative interpretations please? Anyone here wish to argue that unaccountable power is a good thing? Do elaborate please. The main argument I can see for not having transparent filters ? aside from the libertarian argument that Twitter is a private owned web space, so its owners can apply whatever rules they want as long as they violate no one?s rights (and you don?t have any inherent right to post what you want in their space ? just like a magazine or newspaper can refuse to publish your commentary if they so please) ? is that transparency might make gaming the system relatively easy. By gaming I mean someone who intends to poison the space but simply follows the rules to a fault. By the way, it?s not unaccountable power either. There are other social media and the whole wide internet that aren?t under Twitter?s control. And Twitter isn?t like a government. It can?t force you to fund it or to participate. In the same way, you could say you don?t want to have person X in your home. You need not be accountable for anyone for your decision to exclude X ? provided it?s really your home and X has no claim to it. Your reasons for excluding X can even be capricious, even stupid. Regards, Dan From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Apr 29 23:53:29 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:53:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <835619C5-68E5-4329-9504-3C8E8A10C525@gmail.com> On Apr 27, 2022, at 12:24 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:22 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: >>> On Apr 26, 2022, at 9:53 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: >>>> > Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and a libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern John Galt.) >>>> >>>> Recall how in Rand?s novel John Galt got all those government contracts? Remember how Galt was the scion of a wealthy family? You don?t recall those things? Well, that?s because Galt wasn?t born into wealth and didn?t step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund. (Yeah, Galt is a fictional character, but his fictional biography is of someone born into a lower middle class family, leaving home at 12, and working his way up from there.) >>>> >>>> This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s hardly a John Galt. >>>> >>> >>> ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? >> >> Yes and yes. Do you know his biography? Do you know about his father?s wealth? > > ### Are you claiming Errol Musk was rich? How rich exactly? > ---------------------------------- That?s hard to tell, but I don?t many poor people who have their kids emeralds to sell to jewelers. Do you? >> Do you know how his business have actively pursued and gotten federal and state subsidies? > > ### Are you claiming Elon Musk made his money from state subsidies? What fraction? > > Do look things up in reputable sources. Daily Kos and Gizmodo don't count. See https://reason.com/podcast/2021/03/03/elon-musk-welfare-king/ It seems like it?d be hard to untangle all this, but federal and state subsidies to his businesses were and something he actively pursues. It can be argued that Tesla cara would?ve been prohibitively expensive early on without the federal subsidies. This is, by the way, how many rich people benefit from the tax base: they get the subsidies, protections, and such. This doesn?t mean they never ever produce or that they don?t do some good. (One can easily imagine someone having Musk?s many lucky breaks ending up broke or just making an initial bump in wealth and resting on that. For instance, he could?ve sold his portion of PayPal and simply retired.) Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 00:29:34 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:29:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >?There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. spike >?I don't get this. Whadda mean, we paid for it? The internet? Ja. The internet grew out of the US Department of Defense as a project to facilitate electronic communications should the commies nuke the place. The ARPANET, Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork it was. >From what I can tell, the federal government does not have the authority to keep any particular individual from using that system. Modern speech requires use of the internet. So? using the internet is modern right to free speech. >?We paid for fighter jets too, but don't have the right to fly them. bill w Billw, you paid for the jets, you have the right to be protected by them. You also had the right to join the service and compete with skerjillions of others for the assignment to fly those planes. Did you try for that duty? Neither did I. They still cover our asses. Life is good. spike w On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 4:42 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >>?Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t need to move. They do. spike >?AGreed, - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech will happen here? Depends on how you look at it. The right to free speech means the federal government cannot prosecute citizens for their speech. There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. >? Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms? Should they? bill w If it doesn?t say so in the constitution, the government does not have the right. So no to both questions. The more interesting part to me is that Musk is buying Twitter at enormous cost saying nothing about modifying or changing the filtering algorithms. He is only saying he will make them public domain. It has become the biggest debate topic in some time, which is remarkable in itself. Is there a legitimate reason, or even a logical illegitimate reason for stopping a guy from buying social media in order to make its filtering algorithm public? Plenty of the public seem to think it is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing for a social medium to tell them something? How can it be argued that it is a bad thing for a company deciding to now offer you something which it didn?t give you before? The company is not forcing you to look at the filtering algorithms, ja? So? making those algorithms public cannot possibly harm anyone, ja? But it can certainly satisfy some long-standing curiosity so some can benefit. So? why is there any debate? 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 Sat Apr 30 00:36:27 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:36:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> , <002201d85b34$162e7500$428b5f00$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <006201d85c2a$549f0880$fddd1980$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged >?If Atlas Shrugged is libertarian porn, where can I find communism porn? I like to stay balanced in all things and too much porn of one kind may throw off my equilibrium. Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx and Fred Engels. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 00:53:14 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:53:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> References: <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: That seems too facile. The federal government also built much of the infrastructure you use to live in your house. Does anyone, therefore, have a right to enter your house regardless of your wishes? If this analogy doesn?t convince you, then think if the postal service. Many print magazines depend on the postal service to reach subscribers. The postal service (just shot everywhere ? not just the in US) is tax funded. Therefore, shouldn?t magazines be required to publish any taxpayer?s rankings and ravings? What you can make from the federal government funded the internet shouldn?t be that there are no private spaces on it. Just like if you Have a web site, you should be able to decide what content goes there, including what you care to exclude. For instance, in your blog, you might decide to exclude certain comments or even restrict the readership. I trust you wouldn?t argue that all blogs should be open to anyone placing content on them ? even without the blog owner?s consent. Modern speech doesn?t mean ? just like in prior times ? someone give you a platform. And this is more about edgelords and alt right trolls wanting a captive audience. They have space they can go to, but recall what happened with Parler. They didn?t like it because they didn?t have opponents to bully or trigger. Regards, Dan > On Apr 29, 2022, at 5:31 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > > ? > > > ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun > > >?There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. spike > > >?I don't get this. Whadda mean, we paid for it? The internet? > > Ja. The internet grew out of the US Department of Defense as a project to facilitate electronic communications should the commies nuke the place. The ARPANET, Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork it was. > > From what I can tell, the federal government does not have the authority to keep any particular individual from using that system. Modern speech requires use of the internet. So? using the internet is modern right to free speech. > > > > >?We paid for fighter jets too, but don't have the right to fly them. bill w > > Billw, you paid for the jets, you have the right to be protected by them. You also had the right to join the service and compete with skerjillions of others for the assignment to fly those planes. Did you try for that duty? Neither did I. They still cover our asses. Life is good. > > spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 00:58:46 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:58:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: LOn Apr 29, 2022, at 3:03 PM, Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat wrote: > If Atlas Shrugged is libertarian porn, where can I find communism porn? I like to stay balanced in all things and too much porn of one kind may throw off my equilibrium. You might consider literary works falling under the ?socialist realism? rubric. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 01:01:04 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:01:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <75F727AA-CE74-4EB5-8ABE-E7B1B45AECE0@gmail.com> References: <006c01d85c08$4cb9d310$e62d7930$@rainier66.com> <75F727AA-CE74-4EB5-8ABE-E7B1B45AECE0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007a01d85c2d$c511ee40$4f35cac0$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat Sent: Friday, 29 April, 2022 4:43 PM >... transparency might make gaming the system relatively easy. By gaming I mean someone who intends to poison the space but simply follows the rules to a fault... If someone can follow the rules to a fault and still poison the space, the fault is with the rules. So... design the algorithms to be an antidote. Even better: the other social media can see how the open company did it and do likewise. Better still: the social media with secret filtering competes directly with the transparent one for customers. Any customer who chooses a medium with secret filters over one with transparent filters is immediately suspect, as is any content found there. >...By the way, it?s not unaccountable power either. There are other social media and the whole wide internet that aren?t under Twitter?s control... Regards, Dan Ja, good thing. Competition breeds excellence. I choose social media which is open and honest. Dan, none of what you wrote is really a direct argument for keeping filters secret. Good points are made however (thanks for that.) What I am looking for is any reason why anyone would oppose Elon Musk's notion of buying Twitter and making the machinery transparent. Is there anything in his plan which is objectionable? Musk: "Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential ? I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it." Elon Musk OK Elon, do it sir, all of it. We are behind you 100%. May the others feel the pressure to show their cards too. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 01:15:08 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:15:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:03 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > All are private companies and can censor anyone they want to (barring > racism, sexism....laws already on the books). > ### If racist and sexist speech was indeed illegal, that would be immoral and also clearly running afoul of the First Amendment. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 01:23:11 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:23:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009701d85c30$db906a90$92b13fb0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >? I trust you wouldn?t argue that all blogs should be open to anyone placing content on them ? even without the blog owner?s consent? Regards, Dan Ja, note that the debate isn?t directly about filters and banning. Musk didn?t actually say anything about relaxing rules on Twitter. The grand innovation he is bringing is to make the filters open source. He is showing us how it works. He isn?t saying anything about turning anything off or turning it down. He is offering something Twitter didn?t have before. Big social media are the defacto public square. I do feel their rules for participation should be open and transparent. Here?s what he said: "Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential ? I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it." Elon Musk OK, sounds good to me. Aside: I have a notion that skilled programmers can put all the rules in software such that no human needs to be in the loop at all, which is good because? it is easy enough to envision the entire internet-enabled planet migrating to that platform. If so, there is just no way to hire enough proles to filter a billion tweets a day. Regarding internet safe spaces: those can be arranged, or current internet media can be transformed to rigorously-filtered safe spaces. Mark Zuckerberg can turn FaceBook into that, a safe space with no meanies allowed, no mentioning Hunter Biden?s laptop from hell for instance, can?t talk about that there, instant banishment to the depths of Twitter for any FaceBooker who even mentions it in jest. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 01:30:07 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:30:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 8:55 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > Modern speech doesn?t mean ? just like in prior times ? someone give you a > platform. And this is more about edgelords and alt right trolls wanting a > captive audience. They have space they can go to, but recall what happened > with Parler. They didn?t like it because they didn?t have opponents to > bully or trigger. > > ### Sufficiently large social networking sites (i.e. sites where individuals and organizations are allowed to publish their speech) should not be considered private property, since they act in a state-like manner, that is, they have an effective monopoly on the publication of speech within the society they are active in, similar in kind to the monopoly on the use of legitimized violence that is afforded to the state. It doesn't matter if a monopolist is "private" or state owned, what matters is the effective monopoly on some sort of activity of interest to the society at large. Since the free exchange of opinions on political matters is of legitimate interest to the society, we the people must have the right to control the monopolist to assure the monopolist acts in our interest. Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, the American banking system and other state-like entities must serve the people. Specifically, in all aspects of their activities that have a bearing on our ability to exercise our right of free speech, including sexist, racist, anti-human or hate speech, they must not in any way abridge this right. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 01:35:40 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:35:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: <835619C5-68E5-4329-9504-3C8E8A10C525@gmail.com> References: <835619C5-68E5-4329-9504-3C8E8A10C525@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:55 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Apr 27, 2022, at 12:24 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 1:22 AM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2022, at 9:53 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> On Apr 26, 2022, at 8:25 AM, spike jones via extropy-chat < >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >>> > Ja. But there are more than two sides. Musk is African American and >>> a libertarian (oh what a fine example of a libertarian is he, the modern >>> John Galt.) >>> >>> Recall how in Rand?s novel John Galt got all those government contracts? >>> Remember how Galt was the scion of a wealthy family? You don?t recall those >>> things? Well, that?s because Galt wasn?t born into wealth and didn?t step >>> his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund. (Yeah, Galt >>> is a fictional character, but his fictional biography is of someone born >>> into a lower middle class family, leaving home at 12, and working his way >>> up from there.) >>> >>> This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space >>> technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s >>> hardly a John Galt. >>> >>> >> ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the >> financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? >> >> >> Yes and yes. Do you know his biography? Do you know about his father?s >> wealth? >> > > ### Are you claiming Errol Musk was rich? How rich exactly? > ---------------------------------- > > > That?s hard to tell, but I don?t many poor people who have their kids > emeralds to sell to jewelers. Do you? > ### If you think vague innuendo will cut it in a reasonable discussion, you are wrong. How rich exactly do you think Errol Musk was when Elon was living in this household? ------------------------------------ > > Do you know how his business have actively pursued and gotten federal and >> state subsidies? >> > > ### Are you claiming Elon Musk made his money from state subsidies? What > fraction? > > Do look things up in reputable sources. Daily Kos and Gizmodo don't count. > > > See https://reason.com/podcast/2021/03/03/elon-musk-welfare-king/ > > It seems like it?d be hard to untangle all this, but federal and state > subsidies to his businesses were and something he actively pursues. It can > be argued that Tesla cara would?ve been prohibitively expensive early on > without the federal subsidies. This is, by the way, how many rich people > benefit from the tax base: they get the subsidies, protections, and such. > This doesn?t mean they never ever produce or that they don?t do some good. > (One can easily imagine someone having Musk?s many lucky breaks ending up > broke or just making an initial bump in wealth and resting on that. For > instance, he could?ve sold his portion of PayPal and simply retired.) > > ### Elon Musk is an American entrepreneur who sold services to the US government. Nothing wrong with that. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 01:45:59 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:45:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:14 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Is there, according to Rafal, a necessary link between Marxism and evil? > Has any country practiced true Marxism? bill w > ### One of the main precepts of Marxism-Leninism is the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat, that is the imposition of communism by violent overthrow of democratic institutions, including private property, and the rule by fiat by the "vanguard of the proletariat", that is the members of a communist party. This inevitably leads to the self-selection of status-maximizing psychopaths, who are always attracted to power, into the communist party, and to ideologically driven totalitarianism. Thus, totalitarian rule by psychopaths is implied by the basic tenets of communism and it is inherently evil. All the other blather you find in communist propaganda is just a verbal smokescreen. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 01:48:48 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:48:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <53BA112B-22F4-4A3A-8372-430FB07FAFC2@hxcore.ol> References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> <53BA112B-22F4-4A3A-8372-430FB07FAFC2@hxcore.ol> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:57 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > I?m planning on moving to Europe soon. Which countries in Europe do you > think are the most libertarian friendly? I had planned on going to Portugal > because of generous economic incentives, but I am open to others as well > especially if the culture is more aligned with libertarianism. > ### Switzerland. Traffic tickets are completely fascist but otherwise you are being less pushed around by the state than in the Eurostate. Plus, you get to have a gun, assuming you somehow became a citizen. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 01:57:49 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 18:57:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] I salute Elon Musk, Captain of Spaceship Earth! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1B464E8E-A941-464F-8357-9698A38FC71D@gmail.com> On Apr 29, 2022, at 6:37 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >>>>>> Recall how in Rand?s novel John Galt got all those government contracts? Remember how Galt was the scion of a wealthy family? You don?t recall those things? Well, that?s because Galt wasn?t born into wealth and didn?t step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund. (Yeah, Galt is a fictional character, but his fictional biography is of someone born into a lower middle class family, leaving home at 12, and working his way up from there.) >>>>>> >>>>>> This isn?t to belittle Musk?s achievements in the area of space technology, cars, and batteries. Hes shaken up those industries. But he?s hardly a John Galt. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ### Is Musk a "scion of a wealthy family"? Did he step his way up the financial ladder via dipping into the tax fund? >>>> >>>> Yes and yes. Do you know his biography? Do you know about his father?s wealth? >>> >>> ### Are you claiming Errol Musk was rich? How rich exactly? >>> ---------------------------------- >> >> That?s hard to tell, but I don?t many poor people who have their kids emeralds to sell to jewelers. Do you? > > ### If you think vague innuendo will cut it in a reasonable discussion, you are wrong. How rich exactly do you think Errol Musk was when Elon I too was living in this household? Again, no exact figures, but everything points to wealth and not poverty and certainly not like Galt?s auto mechanic father (admittedly fictional). It?s not like he grew up in Appalachia and live in a shotgun shack until was old enough to get a job in the coal mine. >>>> Do you know how his business have actively pursued and gotten federal and state subsidies? >>> >>> ### Are you claiming Elon Musk made his money from state subsidies? What fraction? >>> >>> Do look things up in reputable sources. Daily Kos and Gizmodo don't count. >> >> See https://reason.com/podcast/2021/03/03/elon-musk-welfare-king/ >> >> It seems like it?d be hard to untangle all this, but federal and state subsidies to his businesses were and something he actively pursues. It can be argued that Tesla cara would?ve been prohibitively expensive early on without the federal subsidies. This is, by the way, how many rich people benefit from the tax base: they get the subsidies, protections, and such. This doesn?t mean they never ever produce or that they don?t do some good. (One can easily imagine someone having Musk?s many lucky breaks ending up broke or just making an initial bump in wealth and resting on that. For instance, he could?ve sold his portion of PayPal and simply retired.) > > ### Elon Musk is an American entrepreneur who sold services to the US government. Nothing wrong with that. The article talks about subsidies ? not selling services. And I specified subsidies. Tesla received subsidies for each car sold. SpaceX got subsidies before it even launched a rocket or had anything to sell. Etc. The thing that starting my entry into this thread was Spike over-praising Musk as John Galt. Again, granted, Galt is fictional, but we do have people more like Galt than Musk, such as Andrew Carnegie. (Carnegie isn?t a perfect case either, but he?s much closer to the rags to riches story than Musk is. One way Carnegie and Musk are alike though is they both became the richest men in their time. Galt, in his fictional world, is not the richest man.) Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 01:59:40 2022 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:59:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] new neuron learning theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:52 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Perceptron-style "neurons" were a simplified caricature of how > neurologists thought neurons /might/ work back in the 70s, even when they > were first implemented. > > Time and neurological research hasn't been kind to the comparison. > > At this point, the only similarity between the basic elements of > network-based machine learning algorithms and mammalian brain cells is the > name. ML "neurons" are basically pure mathematical abstractions, completely > unmoored from anything biological cells actually do. > ### Biological neurons and ML neural nets that run on digital computers are both physical implementations of the mathematical abstraction that, among others, enables intelligence. So ML is not unmoored from biological cells, it is a high-level abstract description of what the biological cells actually do. Rafal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 02:10:48 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:10:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Apr 29, 2022, at 6:53 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 5:57 PM Hermes Trismegistus via extropy-chat wrote: >> I?m planning on moving to Europe soon. Which countries in Europe do you think are the most libertarian friendly? I had planned on going to Portugal because of generous economic incentives, but I am open to others as well especially if the culture is more aligned with libertarianism. >> > ### Switzerland. Traffic tickets are completely fascist but otherwise you are being less pushed around by the state than in the Eurostate. Plus, you get to have a gun, assuming you somehow became a citizen. My understanding is Swiss citizenship is not easy to obtain ? unless one of your parents has Swiss citizenship or marrying someone who does. There?s still a process to go from immigrant to citizen, but it?s long (a decade, I believe) and there are no guarantees. (If Hermes is already a citizen of an EU member state, then it?s somewhat easier.) I recall some of this from my interest in PT ? permanent travelers. Switzerland was amongst the harder nations to obtain citizenship. There are some Commonwealth states where you can practically buy your way in at a pretty low price. And a Commonwealth passport opens a huge range of places many of which are anglophone ? if that matters. My understanding also is Swiss gun laws are fairly liberal, so even non-citizens can obtain firearms legally. They?re pro-gun like Karl Marx. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 02:15:36 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 19:15:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <8435DD35-78F1-4642-A8FB-3A509D01AA00@hxcore.ol> <001901d85b89$d3293550$797b9ff0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <011501d85c38$2e3db6b0$8ab92410$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:14 AM William Flynn Wallace > wrote: >? Has any country practiced true Marxism? bill w No. True Marxism is impossible. Reasoning: Marxism has been attempted multiple times, at the cost of untold suffering and loss of life. It has failed every time. The Marxists can be counted on to tell us the reason it failed was that it was not true Marxism, for Marxists refuse to accept that the notion is fundamentally flawed. Conclusion: true Marxism is impossible. I have a variation on it however, which I think is possible. It isn?t true Marxism but I think of it as the libertarian version of Marxism. It doesn?t even need a Czar or dictator or central government or compulsion of any kind. It works like this: To each according to his need, from each according to his ability, up to each to decide which is which. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 02:21:46 2022 From: brent.allsop at gmail.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:21:46 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Is Artificial Life Conscious? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yay, someone is finally talking about what I?m interested in. It is impossible to communicate to a blind person what redness is like for a reason. This is because our abstracting senses can tell us everything about how the neurotransmitter glutamate reacts in a synapse. But for the same reason, such abstract descriptions tell us nothing of the intrinsic colorness quality or quale of glutamate. An important part of all this is there are two ways to gain knowledge about physics. There is perception through our abstract senses, and there is direct apprehension of intrinsic qualities (qualia) of the resulting rendered conscious knowledge. These two different ways are compared in this video segment . Given all that, you could communicate to a person with no eyes what redness is like, as long as you had a dictionary. You would stimulate something in his visual cortex, causing him to have an experience of directly apprehending and intrinsic redness quality. Then you would say: ?That is redness, and THAT is what we are describing when we describe glutamate reacting in a synapse. With that dictionary, he would then know what you are talking about, when you say redness, even though he didn?t have any eyes. You can?t know what an abstract word like ?red? means, without a dictionary. The redness quality your brain uses to represent knowledge of red things with, is your definition of the word red. A painting is composed of a bunch of different colored pixels. Similarly, consciousness is composed of a bunch of computationally or meaningfully bound elemental intrinsic qualities like redness and greenness. Simple as that. On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:53 PM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022, 4:30 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> Something of that sort might partly explain the difficulties trying to >> verbally explain a qualia. Since we communicate audibly, describing a color >> using what are, after all, "just sounds" (speech), might be like trying to >> explain a sound in terms of smell, or a feeling in terms of a taste. These >> various qualia spaces corresponding to our different senses can have >> different dimensionality, or otherwise don't commute. >> > > Tastes like purple > You mean grape? > No, I mean the cheap purple food coloring in knockoff Otter Pops > > Synesthesia is going to make eating your words much more interesting :) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 04:56:10 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:56:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <011501d85c38$2e3db6b0$8ab92410$@rainier66.com> References: <011501d85c38$2e3db6b0$8ab92410$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <756C30B5-5945-46AE-8089-B09EB51CE82D@gmail.com> On Apr 29, 2022, at 7:17 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat wrote: > ?> On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki via extropy-chat > Subject: Re: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:14 AM William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > >? Has any country practiced true Marxism? bill w > > No. True Marxism is impossible. Reasoning: Marxism has been attempted multiple times, at the cost of untold suffering and loss of life. It has failed every time. The Marxists can be counted on to tell us the reason it failed was that it was not true Marxism, for Marxists refuse to accept that the notion is fundamentally flawed. Conclusion: true Marxism is impossible. > > I have a variation on it however, which I think is possible. It isn?t true Marxism but I think of it as the libertarian version of Marxism. It doesn?t even need a Czar or dictator or central government or compulsion of any kind. It works like this: To each according to his need, from each according to his ability, up to each to decide which is which. I think a big problem here is Marx was vague about much. He did have a theory of historical development and some ideas on how to bring about a better society, but the latter was vague and filled with some bad ideas that are still vague, such as the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat. I reckon you?re focusing on the latter, and it?s fairly authoritarian. I?m not scholar of Marxism or its variations, and I certainly wouldn?t explain the failures of Marx-inspired states to deliver the goods. Sometimes, yes, it seems more like using the ideas just to justify why the people in charge get to run things and hand out the goodies, but it seems like many attempts were sincere. But Marx didn?t have any detailed plan of how to transition to his ideal society or how his ideal society would work ? just rather airy stuff. Thus when the bolsheviks took over, it wasn?t like they had a playbook to operate from. In fact, the early implementation of central planning was like what Marx called deprecatingly ?barracks communism.? Also, Marxism as it evolved and continues to evolve as a critical and revolutionary philosophy kind of has at its core a notion that the ideas should change to suit the times. This, of course, makes a moving target if you?re trying to understand just what it?s supposed to get at. I mean if it?s liberation from oppression, that?s fine and as the means of oppression and library in charge, one would not want ? as someone who is in favor of liberation ? to lock oneself into a paradigm that no longer fits. But that?s also an invitation to an intellectual muddle where one can?t be sure what?s going on and would be revolutionaries can hide behind that to explain away their failures or just about anything they do. By the way, I would distinguish between Marxism and communism. This doesn?t mean communism as such is workable. Also, I personally would more want to see a society based on Nozick?s slogan: from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 12:04:12 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:04:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hibernation for human space travel not possible Message-ID: A new hibernation study is bad news for future space travelers Hibernating animals could help us understand how long astronauts could last in space. Tara Yarlagadda 4.28.2022 Quotes: What?s new ? In the new study, scientists reached two surprising conclusions about how hibernating animals save energy. First: Smaller hibernating mammals tend to save, on average, far more energy compared to larger animals. For example, the tiny, 45-gram marsupial known as monito del monte ? which could fit in the palm of your hand ? saves 76 percent of its energy during hibernation compared to its usual active state. On the other hand, a 400-pound grizzly bear actually has negative energy savings of 124 percent. In other words: Most larger bears are not saving energy during hibernation, but losing it. ----------- This brings us back to long-term space travel and its limitations. As the study implies, artificially-induced hibernation in humans, such as in the hypothetical astronaut scenario, probably doesn?t save more energy versus regular sleep. ?Humans are simply too large, so the benefits of hibernation are little ? as in bears ? if we think just on energy savings,? Nespolo says. ---------------------- So humans might as well stay awake during long space trips. But they will have to find some method of avoiding years of boredom during longer journeys. With the radiation problem and no-gravity fitness problem as well, it really does look as though better AI-controlled robots are going to have to do the exploration for humans. BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 12:34:12 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 05:34:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <756C30B5-5945-46AE-8089-B09EB51CE82D@gmail.com> References: <011501d85c38$2e3db6b0$8ab92410$@rainier66.com> <756C30B5-5945-46AE-8089-B09EB51CE82D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002d01d85c8e$993ddf70$cbb99e50$@rainier66.com> From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >?By the way, I would distinguish between Marxism and communism. This doesn?t mean communism as such is workable? Ja. I put the blame for communism on the communists rather than the starry-eyed writers. Like any philosophy, communism picks and chooses carefully among the stuff Marx and Engels wrote. I can mine their writings and find plenty of stuff in there that resembles actual sanity. >?Also, I personally would more want to see a society based on Nozick?s slogan: from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. Regards, Dan Cool I like it. We have a system based on that idea, even if it never heard of Nozick: the Boy Scouts of America. The adult leaders are all volunteers, the boy scout looking for training or advancement goes and finds the people who can help her make it happen, ordinary citizens help fund the organization with donations, lawyers smell the money and voluntarily come after them relentlessly, everything is voluntary, the neediest get what they need, the worthiest help the others and are rewarded with veneration. Excellent. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 13:08:09 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:08:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hibernation for human space travel not possible In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003c01d85c93$571cc200$05564600$@rainier66.com> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: [ExI] Hibernation for human space travel not possible >...A new hibernation study is bad news for future space travelers Hibernating animals could help us understand how long astronauts could last in space. Tara Yarlagadda 4.28.2022 https://www.inverse.com/science/hibernation-study-astronauts-space-travel ... ?Humans are simply too large, so the benefits of hibernation are little ? as in bears ? if we think just on energy savings,? Nespolo says. ---------------------- BillK if you watch a bear in the wild, you notice her movement is very leisurely most of the time, lumbering about looking for stuff to eat. That's pretty much all they do while the sun is warm. When the winter comes, they hole up in their den, muscle movement goes from minimal to nearly nothing, body temperature drops. While the sun shines, the bear maintains a temperature delta with warm surroundings. It gets cold in the den, the bear's body temperature drops, a delta is maintained. The bat flits about constantly, burning a lot of energy during the waking period. The comparison between bats and bears needs to be clarified in the study. >...So humans might as well stay awake during long space trips. But they will have to find some method of avoiding years of boredom during longer journeys. With the radiation problem and no-gravity fitness problem as well, it really does look as though better AI-controlled robots are going to have to do the exploration for humans. BillK _______________________________________________ Ja I agree with the premise: with current technology humans are ill-suited for even a Mars trip, never mind the stuff farther out. Regarding hibernation: humans can be fed with an IV or stomach tube and the temperature in the hibernation chamber can be maintained at any level, options the bear does not have. Regarding boredom, which is really a more relevant observation: the space traveler is stuck in a small space for long periods. Look what we have done to ourselves in the past 4 decades in terms of that box you are staring at right now. Remember what you had in 1982? I do. It had 40 columns of text. Terrible resolution (but we didn't know that at the time), no graphics (graphics? What's that?) no internet (what's internet?) no content if you weren't into math stuff such as optimizing Lucas Lehmer testing (hey cool, Lucas Lehmer, sexy!) and such as that. I was into that hardcore math geek stuff back then, so I am one of the lucky ones. That box did almost nothing for most people as recently as 4 decades ago. Really it was exactly nothing back then for a lot of people. Now that box contains so much and does so much that plenty of otherwise healthy humans freely choose an environment and lifestyle similar to what a space traveler would face. So...Never mind the hibernation. Just choose for astronauts not the athletes, choose among the flaccid internet vegetables. They would scarcely notice the difference if you take them out of their room and park their flabby butts in a tiny spacecraft. spike From jasonresch at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 13:13:03 2022 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:13:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hibernation for human space travel not possible In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 30, 2022, 8:05 AM BillK via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > A new hibernation study is bad news for future space travelers > Hibernating animals could help us understand how long astronauts could > last in space. > Tara Yarlagadda 4.28.2022 > > > > > Quotes: > What?s new ? In the new study, scientists reached two surprising > conclusions about how hibernating animals save energy. > > First: Smaller hibernating mammals tend to save, on average, far more > energy compared to larger animals. For example, the tiny, 45-gram > marsupial known as monito del monte ? which could fit in the palm of > your hand ? saves 76 percent of its energy during hibernation compared > to its usual active state. > > On the other hand, a 400-pound grizzly bear actually has negative > energy savings of 124 percent. In other words: Most larger bears are > not saving energy during hibernation, but losing it. > ----------- > > This brings us back to long-term space travel and its limitations. As > the study implies, artificially-induced hibernation in humans, such as > in the hypothetical astronaut scenario, probably doesn?t save more > energy versus regular sleep. > > ?Humans are simply too large, so the benefits of hibernation are > little ? as in bears ? if we think just on energy savings,? Nespolo > says. > ---------------------- > > > So humans might as well stay awake during long space trips. But they > will have to find some method of avoiding years of boredom during > longer journeys. With the radiation problem and no-gravity fitness > problem as well, it really does look as though better AI-controlled > robots are going to have to do the exploration for humans. > This short story lays out a nice alternative for human space travel: http://frombob.to/you/aconvers.html I won't ruin the surprise for those who want to read it Jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 13:49:13 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 06:49:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system Message-ID: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> Regarding Musk's notion of making the Twitter content filters public led to the observation that this could make it easier to game the system. That rattled around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I came up with an idea (as is my wont (or one of my many wonts (such as wanting excuses to use the term wont (they call me the wont-monster.)))) An earlier observation was the comedy gold provided by the Babylon Bee, which made a skit of an overly sensitive Twitter employee freaking about Musk buying Twitter. Then Twitter played along with the gag by slapping a sensitive content label on a tweet about sensitive Twitter employees (referring to her (and comically self-referencing the Twitter employee who chose the label.)) But it isn't entirely clear the label was Twitter playing along with the gag. It might be that software did that, and that their software is flawed. I chose the more charitable interpretation (Twitter was making fun of itself.) Regarding Musk's notion of making that software public (not defeating it, just making it public domain): that would allow users to download the filter, run a test case on an edgy post, shape it, edit it, rework it until it gets by without a warning. So this would be a form of gaming the system, and could spawn an entirely new genre in a sense: how to creatively word a message in such a way as to communicate an idea around restrictions. Gaming Twitter then becomes analogous to poetry in a way, where you say things with a rhyme and a rhythm, to communicate ideas in a framework of sorts. Going around Twitter filters becomes modern poetry. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 13:52:57 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 08:52:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: My legal team has disputed the use of 'right' to refer to using the internet, or for that matter, highways. Oh I wanted to fly a plane so badly. Two problems: deaf in one ear and too tall (though not too tall now I think). Yes, I know about DARPA. Even me. I recently read that many countries are trying to imitate it. And Good Morning to you! We are having beautiful days here - a dry spell after much rain. How are you on gardening? Flowers and such? love from roz and bill On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:31 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] bee having fun > > > > >?There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world > today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the > internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. spike > > > > >?I don't get this. Whadda mean, we paid for it? The internet? > > > > Ja. The internet grew out of the US Department of Defense as a project to > facilitate electronic communications should the commies nuke the place. > The ARPANET, Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork it was. > > > > From what I can tell, the federal government does not have the authority > to keep any particular individual from using that system. Modern speech > requires use of the internet. So? using the internet is modern right to > free speech. > > > > > > > > >?We paid for fighter jets too, but don't have the right to fly them. > bill w > > > > Billw, you paid for the jets, you have the right to be protected by them. > You also had the right to join the service and compete with skerjillions of > others for the assignment to fly those planes. Did you try for that duty? > Neither did I. They still cover our asses. Life is good. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > w > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 4:42 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] bee having fun > > > > > >>?Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t > need to move. They do. spike > > > > >?AGreed, - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech > will happen here? > > > > Depends on how you look at it. The right to free speech means the federal > government cannot prosecute citizens for their speech. There is an > interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done > primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for > that, so we have a right to it. > > > > >? Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms? Should > they? bill w > > > > If it doesn?t say so in the constitution, the government does not have the > right. So no to both questions. > > > > The more interesting part to me is that Musk is buying Twitter at enormous > cost saying nothing about modifying or changing the filtering algorithms. > He is only saying he will make them public domain. It has become the > biggest debate topic in some time, which is remarkable in itself. > > > > Is there a legitimate reason, or even a logical illegitimate reason for > stopping a guy from buying social media in order to make its filtering > algorithm public? > > > > Plenty of the public seem to think it is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing > for a social medium to tell them something? How can it be argued that it > is a bad thing for a company deciding to now offer you something which it > didn?t give you before? The company is not forcing you to look at the > filtering algorithms, ja? So? making those algorithms public cannot > possibly harm anyone, ja? But it can certainly satisfy some long-standing > curiosity so some can benefit. So? why is there any debate? > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 14:16:17 2022 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:16:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 14:57, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > My legal team has disputed the use of 'right' to refer to using the internet, or for that matter, highways. > Oh I wanted to fly a plane so badly. Two problems: deaf in one ear and too tall (though not too tall now I think). > Yes, I know about DARPA. Even me. I recently read that many countries are trying to imitate it. > > And Good Morning to you! We are having beautiful days here - a dry spell after much rain. How are you on gardening? Flowers and such? love from roz and bill > _______________________________________________ Ooooh! You ask about Spike's flowers?? In the middle of California's severe drought??? Even his cacti are wilting! :) BillK From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 14:18:07 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 07:18:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003d01d85c9d$1de16040$59a420c0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >?My legal team has disputed the use of 'right' to refer to using the internet, or for that matter, highways? I hold that everyone has a right to use the internet. The highways are public domain. They have rules there, but one cannot be banned from using the highways. One can be banned from driving on them, but one can always ride and one can have items brought to them using those highways. I don?t know of any legal structure that would allow the US government to ban anyone from the internet. >?Oh I wanted to fly a plane so badly. Two problems: deaf in one ear and too tall (though not too tall now I think). They don?t let tall guys fly fighter jets because we can?t pull enough Gs. In the movie Top Gun, Goose wouldn?t be allowed: too tall. Most of those actors playing the roles were too tall to be actual fighter jocks. Fun aside on that: when the Mercury crews were being chosen, they looked among military fighter pilots because they already had a maximum height requirement of 5 ft 9 inches (BillK that?s 175 cm.) The Mercury capsule was tiny (which is what is thought to have led to Gus Grissom?s nearly fatal claustrophobia attack (after he landed in the water and might have blown the hatch to escape.)) After the F18, the height restriction was relaxed. >?Yes, I know about DARPA. Even me. I recently read that many countries are trying to imitate it? The actual DARPA guys are a hell of a lotta fun if you get a chance to go to lunch with them and talk wacky ideas. There might be DARPA funds in some cryonics research. >?And Good Morning to you! We are having beautiful days here - a dry spell after much rain. How are you on gardening? Flowers and such? love from roz and bill Bill, I don?t know if you intended to address this note to ExI, but I am assuming you did and included the cheery greeting just to be human (and thanks for that sir.) All is well here, health is good. My idea of gardening is looking at photos of your flowers on the internet and videos of other people pulling weeds. I am more of a machine person than a flower person. I could see building a robot which recognizes and pulls weeds. spike On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 7:31 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >?There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. spike >?I don't get this. Whadda mean, we paid for it? The internet? Ja. The internet grew out of the US Department of Defense as a project to facilitate electronic communications should the commies nuke the place. The ARPANET, Advanced Research Projects Agency NETwork it was. >From what I can tell, the federal government does not have the authority to keep any particular individual from using that system. Modern speech requires use of the internet. So? using the internet is modern right to free speech. >?We paid for fighter jets too, but don't have the right to fly them. bill w Billw, you paid for the jets, you have the right to be protected by them. You also had the right to join the service and compete with skerjillions of others for the assignment to fly those planes. Did you try for that duty? Neither did I. They still cover our asses. Life is good. spike w On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 4:42 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun >>?Billw, we have a constitutional right to free speech. So we don?t need to move. They do. spike >?AGreed, - do you or anyone think that an abridgement of free speech will happen here? Depends on how you look at it. The right to free speech means the federal government cannot prosecute citizens for their speech. There is an interesting extension being made that speech in our world today isn?t done primarily by the voice but the words we post on the internet. We paid for that, so we have a right to it. >? Does the government have a right to examine the algorithms? Should they? bill w If it doesn?t say so in the constitution, the government does not have the right. So no to both questions. The more interesting part to me is that Musk is buying Twitter at enormous cost saying nothing about modifying or changing the filtering algorithms. He is only saying he will make them public domain. It has become the biggest debate topic in some time, which is remarkable in itself. Is there a legitimate reason, or even a logical illegitimate reason for stopping a guy from buying social media in order to make its filtering algorithm public? Plenty of the public seem to think it is a bad thing. Is it a bad thing for a social medium to tell them something? How can it be argued that it is a bad thing for a company deciding to now offer you something which it didn?t give you before? The company is not forcing you to look at the filtering algorithms, ja? So? making those algorithms public cannot possibly harm anyone, ja? But it can certainly satisfy some long-standing curiosity so some can benefit. So? why is there any debate? spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 14:33:38 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:33:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system In-Reply-To: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> References: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: You mean there's modern poetry with rhyme and rhythm? I quit taking the New Yorker and ATlantic Monthly partly because of the horrible poetry they publish - no rhymes, no meter, obscure in the meaning department. Of course you have 'lower level' stuff, like Breathe that I circulated, that the magazines would never print - literary profs would burn the issue in public as a protest against sensible poetry. bill w On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 8:51 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Regarding Musk?s notion of making the Twitter content filters public led > to the observation that this could make it easier to game the system. > > > > That rattled around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I > came up with an idea (as is my wont (or one of my many wonts (such as > wanting excuses to use the term wont (they call me the wont-monster.)))) > > > > An earlier observation was the comedy gold provided by the Babylon Bee, > which made a skit of an overly sensitive Twitter employee freaking about > Musk buying Twitter. Then Twitter played along with the gag by slapping a > sensitive content label on a tweet about sensitive Twitter employees > (referring to her (and comically self-referencing the Twitter employee who > chose the label.)) But it isn?t entirely clear the label was Twitter > playing along with the gag. It might be that software did that, and that > their software is flawed. I chose the more charitable interpretation > (Twitter was making fun of itself.) > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Musk?s notion of making that software public (not defeating it, > just making it public domain): that would allow users to download the > filter, run a test case on an edgy post, shape it, edit it, rework it until > it gets by without a warning. So this would be a form of gaming the > system, and could spawn an entirely new genre in a sense: how to creatively > word a message in such a way as to communicate an idea around > restrictions. Gaming Twitter then becomes analogous to poetry in a way, > where you say things with a rhyme and a rhythm, to communicate ideas in a > framework of sorts. Going around Twitter filters becomes modern poetry. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 15:45:56 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 08:45:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <005c01d85ca9$626abb60$27403220$@rainier66.com> ...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 14:57, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat wrote: > > My legal team has disputed the use of 'right' to refer to using the internet, or for that matter, highways. > Oh I wanted to fly a plane so badly. Two problems: deaf in one ear and too tall (though not too tall now I think). > Yes, I know about DARPA. Even me. I recently read that many countries are trying to imitate it. > > And Good Morning to you! We are having beautiful days here - a dry > spell after much rain. How are you on gardening? Flowers and such? > love from roz and bill > _______________________________________________ >...Ooooh! You ask about Spike's flowers?? In the middle of California's severe drought??? Even his cacti are wilting! :) BillK _______________________________________________ Note: if you are short of time, read and ponder only the last paragraph thx. s BillK, the drought notion is exaggerated intentionally in order to pressure politicians to allow the Sacramento Valley Water District to construct a dam to create a huge new reservoir north and west of Colusa California, which is politically a very touchy subject around here. Given half an invitation, I will freely share my views on that. Freely. Cheerfully. Aaaaand... since that project was approved, we know where this is going. I will freely cheerfully share my views on that too, given half an invitation, or perhaps a quarter of one, cheerfully, freely. Billw's comment on the internet is of critical importance. Most of us will agree that everyone has the right to use the internet. I don't know of anyone banned from using it, even prisoners if they have a computer and can get a connection inside the slammer (not sure how that works (could they get a hot spot in there and use a phone?)) In principle, no one can be banned from the internet. However... one can be banned from using Twitter. OK then. Twitter is a private company (well technically ja it is.) So they have the legal right to ban a particular person (and they do.) If a person breaks their rules often enough, that person is banned. In extreme cases that person is banned for life. OK we get that. But on Twitter, a person can be theoretically banned even if they didn't actually break the rules. A person can be proactively banned based on what the Twitterers fear she is going to post there if allowed to post there. Elon Musk was banned from Twitter proactively by the head of the Twitter engineering group. OK then. That is legal. Is it moral? If a particular person can be banned from Twitter, not because of what she actually did but because of who she is and what she might do, then it would be easy to ban that person from the other mainstream media based on her being banned on Twitter. (Ja?) This creates a defacto banning from meaningful internet use. I would agree with those who argue that this is the functional equivalent to violating a person's human right to free speech. spike From atymes at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 15:53:09 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 08:53:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bee having fun In-Reply-To: <005c01d85ca9$626abb60$27403220$@rainier66.com> References: <000f01d85be1$0014c500$003e4f00$@rainier66.com> <004a01d85c03$050ff9e0$0f2feda0$@rainier66.com> <007201d85c08$c3035960$490a0c20$@rainier66.com> <001b01d85c11$a9a48300$fced8900$@rainier66.com> <004d01d85c29$5e427da0$1ac778e0$@rainier66.com> <005c01d85ca9$626abb60$27403220$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 8:47 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > If a particular person can be banned from Twitter, not because of what she > actually did but because of who she is and what she might do, then it would > be easy to ban that person from the other mainstream media based on her > being banned on Twitter. (Ja?) This creates a defacto banning from > meaningful internet use. I would agree with those who argue that this is > the functional equivalent to violating a person's human right to free > speech. > It is possible for a person to be banned in this fashion. It is more likely for the mainstream media to independently decide not to have a certain person on air, for reasons similar or identical to why Twitter banned that person (though if Twitter has already banned that person, they may take note of Twitter's decision when making their own decisions). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 15:59:38 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 08:59:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system In-Reply-To: References: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: The word "poetry", used abundantly, may oft be applied where rhyme is denied, deliberately. On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 7:35 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > You mean there's modern poetry with rhyme and rhythm? I quit taking the > New Yorker and ATlantic Monthly partly because of the horrible poetry they > publish - no rhymes, no meter, obscure in the meaning department. Of > course you have 'lower level' stuff, like Breathe that I circulated, that > the magazines would never print - literary profs would burn the issue in > public as a protest against sensible poetry. bill w > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 8:51 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regarding Musk?s notion of making the Twitter content filters public led >> to the observation that this could make it easier to game the system. >> >> >> >> That rattled around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I >> came up with an idea (as is my wont (or one of my many wonts (such as >> wanting excuses to use the term wont (they call me the wont-monster.)))) >> >> >> >> An earlier observation was the comedy gold provided by the Babylon Bee, >> which made a skit of an overly sensitive Twitter employee freaking about >> Musk buying Twitter. Then Twitter played along with the gag by slapping a >> sensitive content label on a tweet about sensitive Twitter employees >> (referring to her (and comically self-referencing the Twitter employee who >> chose the label.)) But it isn?t entirely clear the label was Twitter >> playing along with the gag. It might be that software did that, and that >> their software is flawed. I chose the more charitable interpretation >> (Twitter was making fun of itself.) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Regarding Musk?s notion of making that software public (not defeating it, >> just making it public domain): that would allow users to download the >> filter, run a test case on an edgy post, shape it, edit it, rework it until >> it gets by without a warning. So this would be a form of gaming the >> system, and could spawn an entirely new genre in a sense: how to creatively >> word a message in such a way as to communicate an idea around >> restrictions. Gaming Twitter then becomes analogous to poetry in a way, >> where you say things with a rhyme and a rhythm, to communicate ideas in a >> framework of sorts. Going around Twitter filters becomes modern poetry. >> >> >> >> spike >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 16:06:28 2022 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:06:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system In-Reply-To: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> References: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: How to game the system: be a sociable human being, who isn't trying to get a rise or outraged reaction from people, isn't trying to spread misinformation (and is willing to acknowledge when that which one believed to be true has a lot of evidence suggesting it is false), and acts as if all human beings are worth respect unless and until they do something to revoke that (in particular: being born a certain way, such as black or Mexican or female or gay, is not something they did). It is distressing to ponder how many people might only adopt that morality if forced to in this manner - but if it gets the job done, then let them think they are gaming it. On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 6:51 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Regarding Musk?s notion of making the Twitter content filters public led > to the observation that this could make it easier to game the system. > > > > That rattled around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I > came up with an idea (as is my wont (or one of my many wonts (such as > wanting excuses to use the term wont (they call me the wont-monster.)))) > > > > An earlier observation was the comedy gold provided by the Babylon Bee, > which made a skit of an overly sensitive Twitter employee freaking about > Musk buying Twitter. Then Twitter played along with the gag by slapping a > sensitive content label on a tweet about sensitive Twitter employees > (referring to her (and comically self-referencing the Twitter employee who > chose the label.)) But it isn?t entirely clear the label was Twitter > playing along with the gag. It might be that software did that, and that > their software is flawed. I chose the more charitable interpretation > (Twitter was making fun of itself.) > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Musk?s notion of making that software public (not defeating it, > just making it public domain): that would allow users to download the > filter, run a test case on an edgy post, shape it, edit it, rework it until > it gets by without a warning. So this would be a form of gaming the > system, and could spawn an entirely new genre in a sense: how to creatively > word a message in such a way as to communicate an idea around > restrictions. Gaming Twitter then becomes analogous to poetry in a way, > where you say things with a rhyme and a rhythm, to communicate ideas in a > framework of sorts. Going around Twitter filters becomes modern poetry. > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 16:11:44 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 09:11:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system In-Reply-To: References: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <008e01d85cac$fd1e6eb0$f75b4c10$@rainier66.com> > On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] gaming the system >?You mean there's modern poetry with rhyme and rhythm? I quit taking the New Yorker and ATlantic Monthly partly because of the horrible poetry they publish - no rhymes, no meter, obscure in the meaning department. Of course you have 'lower level' stuff, like Breathe that I circulated, that the magazines would never print - literary profs would burn the issue in public as a protest against sensible poetry. bill w Billw, it is far too cynical a view you present sir. Sure, the rules of poetry have relaxed quite a bit from the days when Shakespeare was shaking the sonnets. This allows anything, aaaaaanything? to be consider poetry. All it takes is for the appropriate use of the return key and insertion of random punctuation. For instance, let?s take the following poem, written by? you: You mean there's modern poetry with rhyme and rhythm? I quit taking the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly, Partly because of the horrible poetry they publish. No rhymes! No meter! Obscure in the meaning department. Of course you have 'lower level' stuff, like Breathe That I circulated, that the magazines would never print ? Literary profs would burn the issue in public As a protest against sensible poetry. bill w Ah such subtle poetry! It inspires me to try. Here goes: There once was a lad named Bill Wallace Who used dynamite instead of a phallus They found her vagina In North Carolina And bits of her boobs in Corvallis. Now before you object? who here has actually met ?Bill? Wallace? In person? How do we reeeeally know he or she doesn?t have the items found scattered about the countryside? Anyone? That?s sensible poetry! My friends, the internet does crap like this to our brains. It?s an addiction, I tells ya, an ADDICTION! Hey cool. spike On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 8:51 AM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: Regarding Musk?s notion of making the Twitter content filters public led to the observation that this could make it easier to game the system. That rattled around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I came up with an idea (as is my wont (or one of my many wonts (such as wanting excuses to use the term wont (they call me the wont-monster.)))) An earlier observation was the comedy gold provided by the Babylon Bee, which made a skit of an overly sensitive Twitter employee freaking about Musk buying Twitter. Then Twitter played along with the gag by slapping a sensitive content label on a tweet about sensitive Twitter employees (referring to her (and comically self-referencing the Twitter employee who chose the label.)) But it isn?t entirely clear the label was Twitter playing along with the gag. It might be that software did that, and that their software is flawed. I chose the more charitable interpretation (Twitter was making fun of itself.) Regarding Musk?s notion of making that software public (not defeating it, just making it public domain): that would allow users to download the filter, run a test case on an edgy post, shape it, edit it, rework it until it gets by without a warning. So this would be a form of gaming the system, and could spawn an entirely new genre in a sense: how to creatively word a message in such a way as to communicate an idea around restrictions. Gaming Twitter then becomes analogous to poetry in a way, where you say things with a rhyme and a rhythm, to communicate ideas in a framework of sorts. Going around Twitter filters becomes modern poetry. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 16:43:53 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:43:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system In-Reply-To: References: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Adrian, I am pretty sure that if you asked an English prof today what poetry is, he would shake his head and say that it's whatever the author wants to call it. bill w On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:01 AM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > The word "poetry", > used abundantly, > may oft be applied > where rhyme is denied, > deliberately. > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 7:35 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> You mean there's modern poetry with rhyme and rhythm? I quit taking the >> New Yorker and ATlantic Monthly partly because of the horrible poetry they >> publish - no rhymes, no meter, obscure in the meaning department. Of >> course you have 'lower level' stuff, like Breathe that I circulated, that >> the magazines would never print - literary profs would burn the issue in >> public as a protest against sensible poetry. bill w >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 8:51 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding Musk?s notion of making the Twitter content filters public led >>> to the observation that this could make it easier to game the system. >>> >>> >>> >>> That rattled around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I >>> came up with an idea (as is my wont (or one of my many wonts (such as >>> wanting excuses to use the term wont (they call me the wont-monster.)))) >>> >>> >>> >>> An earlier observation was the comedy gold provided by the Babylon Bee, >>> which made a skit of an overly sensitive Twitter employee freaking about >>> Musk buying Twitter. Then Twitter played along with the gag by slapping a >>> sensitive content label on a tweet about sensitive Twitter employees >>> (referring to her (and comically self-referencing the Twitter employee who >>> chose the label.)) But it isn?t entirely clear the label was Twitter >>> playing along with the gag. It might be that software did that, and that >>> their software is flawed. I chose the more charitable interpretation >>> (Twitter was making fun of itself.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regarding Musk?s notion of making that software public (not defeating >>> it, just making it public domain): that would allow users to download the >>> filter, run a test case on an edgy post, shape it, edit it, rework it until >>> it gets by without a warning. So this would be a form of gaming the >>> system, and could spawn an entirely new genre in a sense: how to creatively >>> word a message in such a way as to communicate an idea around >>> restrictions. Gaming Twitter then becomes analogous to poetry in a way, >>> where you say things with a rhyme and a rhythm, to communicate ideas in a >>> framework of sorts. Going around Twitter filters becomes modern poetry. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 16:55:50 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:55:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system In-Reply-To: <008e01d85cac$fd1e6eb0$f75b4c10$@rainier66.com> References: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> <008e01d85cac$fd1e6eb0$f75b4c10$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Aesthetics: I have read quite a bit of it, trying to understand, and the philosophers have failed to make sense to me. For one thing, few if any art people would acknowledge that there are rules to what they are doing, and if there are rules, they will be happy to break them and flaunt them, or create new rules. Think of how some of us don't want to think of rap as music. Oh it's music, all right, just as highly inferior cartoons are visual art. How can one be creative while doing the same old things? Well, Michelangelo did it, Leonardo did it, Debussy did it (though he stretched music perhaps more than anyone else close to that time). Lots of people did it but their stuff didn't catch on. (someone will dig it up later and claim that it's genius work and some will buy into that - think of Grandma Moses, or are you too young?). Bottom line: great art is when I like it. Poor art is when I don't like it. But it is not, I think, a coincidence that what I think of as great is acknowledged as great by authorities. . Other things thought of as great by authorities, such as SChoenberg, I think of as maybe a good idea but poor execution (i.e. I don't like it). It's all opinion and no truth to be found. bill w On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 11:13 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] gaming the system > > > > >?You mean there's modern poetry with rhyme and rhythm? I quit > taking the New Yorker and ATlantic Monthly partly because of the horrible > poetry they publish - no rhymes, no meter, obscure in the meaning > department. Of course you have 'lower level' stuff, like Breathe that I > circulated, that the magazines would never print - literary profs would > burn the issue in public as a protest against sensible poetry. bill w > > > > > > > > Billw, it is far too cynical a view you present sir. Sure, the rules of > poetry have relaxed quite a bit from the days when Shakespeare was shaking > the sonnets. This allows anything, aaaaaanything? to be consider poetry. > All it takes is for the appropriate use of the return key and insertion of > random punctuation. For instance, let?s take the following poem, written > by? you: > > > > You mean there's modern poetry with rhyme and rhythm? > > I quit taking the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly, > > Partly because of the horrible poetry they publish. > > No rhymes! No meter! Obscure in the meaning department. > > Of course you have 'lower level' stuff, like Breathe > > That I circulated, that the magazines would never print ? > > Literary profs would burn the issue in public > > As a protest against sensible poetry. > > > > bill w > > > > Ah such subtle poetry! It inspires me to try. Here goes: > > > > There once was a lad named Bill Wallace > > Who used dynamite instead of a phallus > > They found her vagina > > In North Carolina > > And bits of her boobs in Corvallis. > > > > Now before you object? who here has actually met ?Bill? Wallace? In > person? How do we reeeeally know he or she doesn?t have the items found > scattered about the countryside? Anyone? That?s sensible poetry! > > > > My friends, the internet does crap like this to our brains. It?s an > addiction, I tells ya, an ADDICTION! Hey cool. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 8:51 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Musk?s notion of making the Twitter content filters public led > to the observation that this could make it easier to game the system. > > > > That rattled around in my brain like a golf ball in a 55 gallon drum. I > came up with an idea (as is my wont (or one of my many wonts (such as > wanting excuses to use the term wont (they call me the wont-monster.)))) > > > > An earlier observation was the comedy gold provided by the Babylon Bee, > which made a skit of an overly sensitive Twitter employee freaking about > Musk buying Twitter. Then Twitter played along with the gag by slapping a > sensitive content label on a tweet about sensitive Twitter employees > (referring to her (and comically self-referencing the Twitter employee who > chose the label.)) But it isn?t entirely clear the label was Twitter > playing along with the gag. It might be that software did that, and that > their software is flawed. I chose the more charitable interpretation > (Twitter was making fun of itself.) > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Musk?s notion of making that software public (not defeating it, > just making it public domain): that would allow users to download the > filter, run a test case on an edgy post, shape it, edit it, rework it until > it gets by without a warning. So this would be a form of gaming the > system, and could spawn an entirely new genre in a sense: how to creatively > word a message in such a way as to communicate an idea around > restrictions. Gaming Twitter then becomes analogous to poetry in a way, > where you say things with a rhyme and a rhythm, to communicate ideas in a > framework of sorts. Going around Twitter filters becomes modern poetry. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18014 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 18:40:47 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 11:40:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ok this explains it Message-ID: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> OK well I suppose this solves the mystery of why the big panic. https://twitter.com/i/status/1518787650815201281 Ari Melber goes on about how Twitter doesn't need to be transparent. OK well then he is in perfect agreement with Elon Musk, who intends to make the workings transparent. So this commentator appears in the photo to be in full panic mode over how Twitter can influence elections because they don't need to be transparent, while simultaneously failing to recognize that it isn't transparent now, and is being purchased by a guy who intends to take it from not transparent to transparent. The mind boggles. Furthermore, we get to find out if this bad evil practice he describes has already been done. So. stopping the evil practice this is a good thing, ja? There are credible accusations that is has been done and is being done now. But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad thing. I don't understand. Can anyone explain please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28869 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 19:01:44 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:01:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ok this explains it In-Reply-To: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> References: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad thing. I don?t understand. Can anyone explain please? spike What if a media company wanted to discriminate against some political party? It's a private company, so it's not illegal - true? Making this transparent would be a terrible idea. I can't see this coming under equal time laws. bill w On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 1:43 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > OK well I suppose this solves the mystery of why the big panic. > > > > https://twitter.com/i/status/1518787650815201281 > > > > > > > > > > > > Ari Melber goes on about how Twitter doesn?t need to be transparent. OK > well then he is in perfect agreement with Elon Musk, who intends to make > the workings transparent. > > > > So this commentator appears in the photo to be in full panic mode over how > Twitter can influence elections because they don?t need to be transparent, > while simultaneously failing to recognize that it isn?t transparent now, > and is being purchased by a guy who intends to take it from not transparent > to transparent. > > > > The mind boggles. > > > > Furthermore, we get to find out if this bad evil practice he describes has > already been done. So? stopping the evil practice this is a good thing, > ja? There are credible accusations that is has been done and is being done > now. But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad > thing. I don?t understand. Can anyone explain please? > > > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28869 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 19:38:28 2022 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:38:28 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: <002d01d85c8e$993ddf70$cbb99e50$@rainier66.com> References: <011501d85c38$2e3db6b0$8ab92410$@rainier66.com> <756C30B5-5945-46AE-8089-B09EB51CE82D@gmail.com> <002d01d85c8e$993ddf70$cbb99e50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Scott Alexander on Singer on Marx: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-marx/ "But in fact Marx was philosophically opposed, as a matter of principle, to any planning about the structure of communist governments or economies. He would come out and say it was irresponsible to talk about how communist governments and economies will work. He believed it was a scientific law, analogous to the laws of physics, that once capitalism was removed, a perfect communist government would form of its own accord. There might be some very light planning, a couple of discussions, but these would just be epiphenomena of the governing historical laws working themselves out. Just as, a dam having been removed, a river will eventually reach the sea somehow, so capitalism having been removed society will eventually reach a perfect state of freedom and cooperation." "Singer blames Hegel. Hegel viewed all human history as the World-Spirit trying to recognize and incarnate itself. As it overcomes its various confusions and false dichotomies, it advances into forms that more completely incarnate the World-Spirit and then moves onto the next problem. Finally, it ends with the World-Spirit completely incarnated ? possibly in the form of early 19th century Prussia ? and everything is great forever." "Marx famously exports Hegel?s mysticism into a materialistic version where the World-Spirit operates upon class relations rather than the interconnectedness of all things, and where you don?t come out and *call* it the World-Spirit ? but he basically keeps the system intact. So once the World-Spirit resolves the dichotomy between Capitalist and Proletariat, then it can more completely incarnate itself and move on to the next problem. Except that this is the final problem (the proof of this is trivial and is left as exercise for the reader) so the World-Spirit becomes fully incarnate and everything is great forever. And you want to *plan* for how that should happen? Are you saying you know better than the World-Spirit, Comrade?" " I am starting to think I was previously a little too charitable toward Marx. My objections were of the sort ?You didn?t really consider the idea of welfare capitalism with a social safety net? or ?communist society is very difficult to implement in principle,? whereas they should have looked more like ?You are basically just telling us to destroy all of the institutions that sustain human civilization and trust that what is *basically* a giant planet-sized ghost will make sure everything works out.? On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 6:36 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf > Of *Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat > > > > > > >?By the way, I would distinguish between Marxism and communism. This > doesn?t mean communism as such is workable? > > > > Ja. I put the blame for communism on the communists rather than the > starry-eyed writers. Like any philosophy, communism picks and chooses > carefully among the stuff Marx and Engels wrote. I can mine their writings > and find plenty of stuff in there that resembles actual sanity. > > > > > > >?Also, I personally would more want to see a society based on Nozick?s > slogan: from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. Regards, Dan > > > > Cool I like it. We have a system based on that idea, even if it never > heard of Nozick: the Boy Scouts of America. The adult leaders are all > volunteers, the boy scout looking for training or advancement goes and > finds the people who can help her make it happen, ordinary citizens help > fund the organization with donations, lawyers smell the money and > voluntarily come after them relentlessly, everything is voluntary, the > neediest get what they need, the worthiest help the others and are rewarded > with veneration. Excellent. > > > > 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 dsunley at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 19:42:10 2022 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:42:10 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <011501d85c38$2e3db6b0$8ab92410$@rainier66.com> <756C30B5-5945-46AE-8089-B09EB51CE82D@gmail.com> <002d01d85c8e$993ddf70$cbb99e50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Marxism isn't a political or economic philosophy, it's an apocalyptic religion. And not a very well-thought-out one either. Could you build a political and economic philosophy on Marxism? Sure. Many have tried. But Marx wasn't one of them. On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 1:38 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > Scott Alexander on Singer on Marx: > https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-marx/ > > "But in fact Marx was philosophically opposed, as a matter of principle, > to any planning about the structure of communist governments or economies. > He would come out and say it was irresponsible to talk about how communist > governments and economies will work. He believed it was a scientific law, > analogous to the laws of physics, that once capitalism was removed, a > perfect communist government would form of its own accord. There might be > some very light planning, a couple of discussions, but these would just be > epiphenomena of the governing historical laws working themselves out. Just > as, a dam having been removed, a river will eventually reach the sea > somehow, so capitalism having been removed society will eventually reach a > perfect state of freedom and cooperation." > > "Singer blames Hegel. Hegel viewed all human history as the World-Spirit > trying to recognize and incarnate itself. As it overcomes its various > confusions and false dichotomies, it advances into forms that more > completely incarnate the World-Spirit and then moves onto the next problem. > Finally, it ends with the World-Spirit completely incarnated ? possibly in > the form of early 19th century Prussia ? and everything is great forever." > > "Marx famously exports Hegel?s mysticism into a materialistic version > where the World-Spirit operates upon class relations rather than the > interconnectedness of all things, and where you don?t come out and *call* it > the World-Spirit ? but he basically keeps the system intact. So once the > World-Spirit resolves the dichotomy between Capitalist and Proletariat, > then it can more completely incarnate itself and move on to the next > problem. Except that this is the final problem (the proof of this is > trivial and is left as exercise for the reader) so the World-Spirit becomes > fully incarnate and everything is great forever. And you want to *plan* for > how that should happen? Are you saying you know better than the > World-Spirit, Comrade?" > " I am starting to think I was previously a little too charitable toward > Marx. My objections were of the sort ?You didn?t really consider the idea > of welfare capitalism with a social safety net? or ?communist society is > very difficult to implement in principle,? whereas they should have looked > more like ?You are basically just telling us to destroy all of the > institutions that sustain human civilization and trust that what is > *basically* a giant planet-sized ghost will make sure everything works > out.? > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 6:36 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* extropy-chat *On Behalf >> Of *Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >> >> >> >> >> >> >?By the way, I would distinguish between Marxism and communism. This >> doesn?t mean communism as such is workable? >> >> >> >> Ja. I put the blame for communism on the communists rather than the >> starry-eyed writers. Like any philosophy, communism picks and chooses >> carefully among the stuff Marx and Engels wrote. I can mine their writings >> and find plenty of stuff in there that resembles actual sanity. >> >> >> >> >> >> >?Also, I personally would more want to see a society based on Nozick?s >> slogan: from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. Regards, Dan >> >> >> >> Cool I like it. We have a system based on that idea, even if it never >> heard of Nozick: the Boy Scouts of America. The adult leaders are all >> volunteers, the boy scout looking for training or advancement goes and >> finds the people who can help her make it happen, ordinary citizens help >> fund the organization with donations, lawyers smell the money and >> voluntarily come after them relentlessly, everything is voluntary, the >> neediest get what they need, the worthiest help the others and are rewarded >> with veneration. Excellent. >> >> >> >> 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 Apr 30 19:56:27 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 14:56:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Atlas Shrugged In-Reply-To: References: <011501d85c38$2e3db6b0$8ab92410$@rainier66.com> <756C30B5-5945-46AE-8089-B09EB51CE82D@gmail.com> <002d01d85c8e$993ddf70$cbb99e50$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Does anyone know if Marx had ideas about how to bridge from capitalism to communism? According to one post, he thought that communism was some law of the universe and would take over once we get rid of what we have. His ideas on primitive societies being communistic were very wrong. bill w On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 2:47 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > Marxism isn't a political or economic philosophy, it's an apocalyptic > religion. And not a very well-thought-out one either. > > Could you build a political and economic philosophy on Marxism? Sure. Many > have tried. > > But Marx wasn't one of them. > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 1:38 PM Darin Sunley wrote: > >> Scott Alexander on Singer on Marx: >> https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-marx/ >> >> "But in fact Marx was philosophically opposed, as a matter of principle, >> to any planning about the structure of communist governments or economies. >> He would come out and say it was irresponsible to talk about how communist >> governments and economies will work. He believed it was a scientific law, >> analogous to the laws of physics, that once capitalism was removed, a >> perfect communist government would form of its own accord. There might be >> some very light planning, a couple of discussions, but these would just be >> epiphenomena of the governing historical laws working themselves out. Just >> as, a dam having been removed, a river will eventually reach the sea >> somehow, so capitalism having been removed society will eventually reach a >> perfect state of freedom and cooperation." >> >> "Singer blames Hegel. Hegel viewed all human history as the World-Spirit >> trying to recognize and incarnate itself. As it overcomes its various >> confusions and false dichotomies, it advances into forms that more >> completely incarnate the World-Spirit and then moves onto the next problem. >> Finally, it ends with the World-Spirit completely incarnated ? possibly in >> the form of early 19th century Prussia ? and everything is great forever." >> >> "Marx famously exports Hegel?s mysticism into a materialistic version >> where the World-Spirit operates upon class relations rather than the >> interconnectedness of all things, and where you don?t come out and *call* it >> the World-Spirit ? but he basically keeps the system intact. So once the >> World-Spirit resolves the dichotomy between Capitalist and Proletariat, >> then it can more completely incarnate itself and move on to the next >> problem. Except that this is the final problem (the proof of this is >> trivial and is left as exercise for the reader) so the World-Spirit becomes >> fully incarnate and everything is great forever. And you want to *plan* for >> how that should happen? Are you saying you know better than the >> World-Spirit, Comrade?" >> " I am starting to think I was previously a little too charitable toward >> Marx. My objections were of the sort ?You didn?t really consider the idea >> of welfare capitalism with a social safety net? or ?communist society is >> very difficult to implement in principle,? whereas they should have looked >> more like ?You are basically just telling us to destroy all of the >> institutions that sustain human civilization and trust that what is >> *basically* a giant planet-sized ghost will make sure everything works >> out.? >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 6:36 AM spike jones via extropy-chat < >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* extropy-chat *On >>> Behalf Of *Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >?By the way, I would distinguish between Marxism and communism. This >>> doesn?t mean communism as such is workable? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ja. I put the blame for communism on the communists rather than the >>> starry-eyed writers. Like any philosophy, communism picks and chooses >>> carefully among the stuff Marx and Engels wrote. I can mine their writings >>> and find plenty of stuff in there that resembles actual sanity. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >?Also, I personally would more want to see a society based on Nozick?s >>> slogan: from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. Regards, Dan >>> >>> >>> >>> Cool I like it. We have a system based on that idea, even if it never >>> heard of Nozick: the Boy Scouts of America. The adult leaders are all >>> volunteers, the boy scout looking for training or advancement goes and >>> finds the people who can help her make it happen, ordinary citizens help >>> fund the organization with donations, lawyers smell the money and >>> voluntarily come after them relentlessly, everything is voluntary, the >>> neediest get what they need, the worthiest help the others and are rewarded >>> with veneration. Excellent. >>> >>> >>> >>> spike >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 20:07:05 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:07:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ok this explains it In-Reply-To: References: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <003d01d85ccd$dd5ed3a0$981c7ae0$@rainier66.com> ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] ok this explains it >>?But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad thing. I don?t understand. Can anyone explain please? spike >?What if a media company wanted to discriminate against some political party? It's a private company, so it's not illegal - true? True! >?Making this transparent would be a terrible idea? Ja, thanks for that. The fact that Musk is buying a media company at enormous expense, planning to make it transparent is evidence that his company does not plan to discriminate against some political party. Billw, very perceptive of you sir. The fact that the other media companies do not make their filtering algorithms transparent indicates the other media companies DO wish to discriminate against some political party. See the reasoning there Billw? So? this ?news? guy appears to be arguing that NOT discriminating against a particular party is a bad thing, but discriminating against a political party is a good thing. Well, is it? MSNBC, is that it? Was this the most epic self-own ever? Was it done for humor? >?I can't see this coming under equal time laws. billw Cool, I?m all for equal time laws. All the minor parties get equal air time with the two biggies, cool. Furthermore? there are a lotta different brands of Libertarians. We can divide into at least a coupla dozen variants, completely swamp the message of these other guys who win all the elections. We wouldn?t even be able to find the two biggies in the resulting pile of hay. spike On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 1:43 PM spike jones via extropy-chat > wrote: OK well I suppose this solves the mystery of why the big panic. https://twitter.com/i/status/1518787650815201281 ? The mind boggles. ? spike _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 20:30:17 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:30:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ok this explains it In-Reply-To: <003d01d85ccd$dd5ed3a0$981c7ae0$@rainier66.com> References: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> <003d01d85ccd$dd5ed3a0$981c7ae0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: Just barely scratching the back of my head: sometime back I read that some news outlets were not going to offer free time to candidates because they could not limit the number of candidates. Makes good sense. bill w On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 3:09 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] ok this explains it > > > > >>?But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad > thing. I don?t understand. Can anyone explain please? spike > > >?What if a media company wanted to discriminate against some political > party? It's a private company, so it's not illegal - true? > > *True!* > > > > >?Making this transparent would be a terrible idea? > > Ja, thanks for that. The fact that Musk is buying a media company at > enormous expense, planning to make it transparent is evidence that his > company does not plan to discriminate against some political party. Billw, > very perceptive of you sir. > > The fact that the other media companies do not make their filtering > algorithms transparent indicates the other media companies DO wish to > discriminate against some political party. > > See the reasoning there Billw? > > So? this ?news? guy appears to be arguing that NOT discriminating against > a particular party is a bad thing, but discriminating against a political > party is a good thing. Well, is it? MSNBC, is that it? Was this the most > epic self-own ever? Was it done for humor? > > >?I can't see this coming under equal time laws. billw > > Cool, I?m all for equal time laws. All the minor parties get equal air > time with the two biggies, cool. Furthermore? there are a lotta different > brands of Libertarians. We can divide into at least a coupla dozen > variants, completely swamp the message of these other guys who win all the > elections. We wouldn?t even be able to find the two biggies in the > resulting pile of hay. > > spike > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 1:43 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > > OK well I suppose this solves the mystery of why the big panic. > > > > https://twitter.com/i/status/1518787650815201281 > > > > > > ? > > The mind boggles. > > ? > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15277 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 20:37:58 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:37:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ok this explains it In-Reply-To: <003d01d85ccd$dd5ed3a0$981c7ae0$@rainier66.com> References: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> <003d01d85ccd$dd5ed3a0$981c7ae0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <007501d85cd2$2e517ed0$8af47c70$@rainier66.com> From: spike at rainier66.com Sent: Saturday, 30 April, 2022 1:07 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Cc: spike at rainier66.com Subject: RE: [ExI] ok this explains it ?> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] ok this explains it >>?But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad thing. I don?t understand. Can anyone explain please? spike >?What if a media company wanted to discriminate against some political party? It's a private company, so it's not illegal - true? True! >>?Making this transparent would be a terrible idea? billw >?So? this ?news? guy appears to be arguing that NOT discriminating against a particular party is a bad thing, but discriminating against a political party is a good thing. Well, is it? MSNBC, is that it? Was this the most epic self-own ever? Was it done for humor? spike Billw, an idea just occurred to me. Reliable sources say Twitter employees are having a collective meltdown over the Musk purchase and of course that opens them to ridicule. But? if true, why is it a crisis for Twitter employees? The reason I missed this before is that I wasn?t asking the right question. The right question is this: What do Twitter employees do? If I owned a social medium, my primary interest would be figuring out how to make it earn enough cash to pay all those employees. To do that requires that most of your employees are selling ad space. Ja? A few managers, a few accountants, a few trainers, the rest: selling ad space. So? their job doesn?t really change at all under new ownership. I don?t see why it would. Do you? But what if? your social medium was employing people to override or enhance the filtering algorithm? It is pretty easy to see that Musk (being a businessman who has indicated he has no interest in discriminating against some political party) would lay off all the human content moderators, or reassign them to something that makes actual money, such as selling ad space. That?s what I would do. So, I could see where that would be a huge blow to those whose current job is to moderate content. They don?t want to sell ad space. They want to moderate content. OK so? what if? Twitter human content moderators exist. What do they do, and how do they do it? What criteria do they use to determine if they will override the moderation software? If Musk makes his filtering algorithm public, then he wouldn?t need humans in the loop overriding the software, ja? So? out they go adios amigo. Assuming one is a Twitter employee but not a Twitter human moderator, is there a downside to the Musk purchase? What is it please? spike https://twitter.com/i/status/1518787650815201281 ? The mind boggles. ? spike _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15277 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9742 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 20:45:10 2022 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:45:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ok this explains it In-Reply-To: <007501d85cd2$2e517ed0$8af47c70$@rainier66.com> References: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> <003d01d85ccd$dd5ed3a0$981c7ae0$@rainier66.com> <007501d85cd2$2e517ed0$8af47c70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: There have to be content moderators. How else could they stop posts that the algorithms can't figure out? I can't see how they would lose their jobs. I use Facebook very occasionally and never see ads. I have wondered about that. bill w There is 'apparently' no downside to Musk. I think we will find out. Maybe it will shake the foundations of other media companies - a great and good thing, I say. bill w On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 3:39 PM spike jones via extropy-chat < extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote: > > > > > *From:* spike at rainier66.com > *Sent:* Saturday, 30 April, 2022 1:07 PM > *To:* 'ExI chat list' > *Cc:* spike at rainier66.com > *Subject:* RE: [ExI] ok this explains it > > > > > > > > *?*> *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] ok this explains it > > > > >>?But Ari makes it sound like exposing that and stopping that is a bad > thing. I don?t understand. Can anyone explain please? spike > > >?What if a media company wanted to discriminate against some political > party? It's a private company, so it's not illegal - true? > > *True!* > > > > >>?Making this transparent would be a terrible idea? billw > > >?So? this ?news? guy appears to be arguing that NOT discriminating > against a particular party is a bad thing, but discriminating against a > political party is a good thing. Well, is it? MSNBC, is that it? Was > this the most epic self-own ever? Was it done for humor? spike > > > > Billw, an idea just occurred to me. > > Reliable sources say Twitter employees are having a collective meltdown > over the Musk purchase and of course that opens them to ridicule. But? if > true, why is it a crisis for Twitter employees? > > The reason I missed this before is that I wasn?t asking the right > question. The right question is this: > > What do Twitter employees do? > > If I owned a social medium, my primary interest would be figuring out how > to make it earn enough cash to pay all those employees. To do that > requires that most of your employees are selling ad space. Ja? A few > managers, a few accountants, a few trainers, the rest: selling ad space. > So? their job doesn?t really change at all under new ownership. I don?t > see why it would. Do you? > > But what if? your social medium was employing people to override or > enhance the filtering algorithm? It is pretty easy to see that Musk (being > a businessman who has indicated he has no interest in discriminating > against some political party) would lay off all the human content > moderators, or reassign them to something that makes actual money, such as > selling ad space. That?s what I would do. > > So, I could see where that would be a huge blow to those whose current job > is to moderate content. They don?t want to sell ad space. They want to > moderate content. > > OK so? what if? Twitter human content moderators exist. What do they do, > and how do they do it? What criteria do they use to determine if they will > override the moderation software? If Musk makes his filtering algorithm > public, then he wouldn?t need humans in the loop overriding the software, > ja? So? out they go adios amigo. > > Assuming one is a Twitter employee but not a Twitter human moderator, is > there a downside to the Musk purchase? What is it please? > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://twitter.com/i/status/1518787650815201281 > > > > > > ? > > The mind boggles. > > ? > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15277 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 9742 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike at rainier66.com Sat Apr 30 20:55:11 2022 From: spike at rainier66.com (spike at rainier66.com) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 13:55:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ok this explains it In-Reply-To: References: <012a01d85cc1$cf1e1b90$6d5a52b0$@rainier66.com> <003d01d85ccd$dd5ed3a0$981c7ae0$@rainier66.com> <007501d85cd2$2e517ed0$8af47c70$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <009201d85cd4$95f6ef00$c1e4cd00$@rainier66.com> ?.> On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat Subject: Re: [ExI] ok this explains it >?There have to be content moderators. How else could they stop posts that the algorithms can't figure out? I can't see how they would lose their jobs? They would have objectionable posts pointed out by users, then write algorithms that can figure out how to moderate posts like that one. They wouldn?t filter texts directly but would be software developers. >?There is 'apparently' no downside to Musk? If so, I haven?t been able to find it. I can see plenty of upside however. >? I think we will find out. Maybe it will shake the foundations of other media companies - a great and good thing, I say. bill w Me too. Other ideas please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Apr 30 22:58:55 2022 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 15:58:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gaming the system In-Reply-To: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> References: <001901d85c99$1443f7e0$3ccbe7a0$@rainier66.com> Message-ID: <623C6678-D315-414A-97CF-E9AD02A73714@gmail.com> Instead of gaming the system as in making edgy content, maybe think of gaming the system as in making spam that?s ever harder to filter out. In which case, transparent filtering algorithms make the spammers job easier, no? Regards, Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: