From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Tue Apr 27 15:39:25 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA05392; Tue, 27 Apr 93 15:39:13 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu) by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA28591; Tue, 27 Apr 93 15:38:54 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Tue, 27 Apr 93 18:29:52 -0400 Message-Id: <9304272229.AA12688@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 18:29:26 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <9304272229.AA12677@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0222 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on April 27, 373 P.N.O. [22:29:51 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Tue, 27 Apr 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0222 Today's Topics: EPIST: Why do formal systems work? [1 msgs] Earth Day [10 msgs] Meta:Rule vs. Being On Mr. Singh's List [5 msgs] PHIL/CULT: Objectivism [1 msgs] RAND: Warning: Objectivism may be hazardous to your health (was MONEY: Objectivists and Gold) [2 msgs] Administrivia: This is the digested version of the Extropian mailing list. Please remember that this list is private; messages must not be forwarded without their author's permission. To send mail to the list/digest, address your posts to: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu To send add/drop requests for this digest, address your post to: exi-daily-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu To make a formal complaint or an administrative request, address your posts to: extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu If your mail reader is operating correctly, replies to this message will be automatically addressed to the entire list [extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu] - please avoid long quotes! The Extropian mailing list is brought to you by the Extropy Institute, through hardware, generously provided, by the Free Software Foundation - neither is responsible for its content. Forward, Onward, Outward - Harry Shapiro (habs) List Administrator. Approximate Size: 50097 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 11:32:55 MDT From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Earth Day > I'm sorry, but Ray is correct. Virtually all the environmentalists > I've met, and I've met A LOT, are leftists of one stripe or another, ^^^^^^^^ Key words > set. It might be an overgeneralization to say that they ALL are like > this, but I think that "most" is a perfectly valid statement. There ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It is only valid if the person speaking KNOWS or has in some way scientif- ically analyzed "most" of them, which you do not/have not done. > was one woman I once had a conversation with who seemed downright Irrelevant anectdote. I am almost embarrassed to have to say these things, they are so obvious, and I have seen enough of both of your posts to know that you both know better. -- Testes saxi solidi! ********************** Podex opacus gravedinosus est! Stanton McCandlish, SysOp: Noise in the Void Data Center BBS IndraNet: 369:1/1 FidoNet: 1:301/2 Internet: anton@hydra.unm.edu Snail: 8020 Central SE #405, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108 USA Data phone: +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400 v32bis, N-8-1) Vox phone: +1-505-247-3402 (bps rate varies, depends on if you woke me up...:) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 11:38:18 MDT From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Meta:Rule vs. Being On Mr. Singh's List > Yeah, hey, what is this!! I mean you can't just trademark common words like, > say "time" or "life" what if I want to use them in a sentence!!! Sheesh, > you anarcho-capitalists want to hoard everything, even words. Not only > that, but since I don't have a clue, I will spout bald assertions to the > list! Why I may even trademark "bald assertions" so that no one else > can use it!!! Sheesh, whaddya mean trademark "EXPONENT:"?!?!!? Was that as much a sarcastic flame against me as I think it was? (not that I will "file charges", Perry does enough of that for all of us. Just curious, since I cannot hear your tone of voice. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 13:35:39 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: RAND: Warning: Objectivism may be hazardous to your health (was MONEY: Objectivists and Gold) X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission I must emphasize here that I am an objectivist with a small "o". I'm not a Rand-worshiper. Ed Lane says: > > At a recent computer conference at a local university I noticed the > bulletin board announcements of several Objectivist group meetings > being held on that campus. This was disturbing. Why should it be disturbing? Objectivism is a perfectly reasonable personal philosophy so long as you don't get into the "There is no God but Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff is Her Prophet" mode. > Unfortunately I read _Atlas Shrugged_ at a particularly vulnerable time > of life. I was still in high school when your brain is highly > susceptable to new ideas. I've spend much of the intervening years > attempting to shed this Randian view of the world. While I believe Ayn > Rand to be well intentioned I've come to understand that it was no > "accident" that her books contained fictional characters. John Galt, > Henry Reardon, and the the rest were all ~characatures~ -- either > bureacratic slime OR industrial gods. No, its not an accident. She was creating more of a parable than a real piece of fiction. She was also a bad author > This view is derived from the > Aristotilean classification system we (I) were discussing earlier in Eric's > thread: Here I disagree with you. Rand tended to see the world in black-and-white terms, but that doesn't mean that to be an objectivist you have to see the world that way. It also doesn't mean that this is the reason she wrote her books the way she did -- that had more to do with not knowing how to write and having this wierd view of "romantic" fiction. > People (and other things) tend to be much more ~grey~. Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some questions do, within the context that they are asked, have single, correct, black-and-white answers. The question "Is today April 27th" has one answer. Now, you can quibble and say "well, it isn't April 27th on the other side of the date line" and crap like that -- but lets face it -- that isn't what the questioner meant. If you want to get to the semantic quibbling level, you start having to define what all the words in the english language mean and you get into infinite regress. There are also questions that are not well defined in their answers. "Is Dorothy Denning an evil person" is an ill posed question, for example. However, lets not fall into the trap of "Everything is Grey, the world is Undefined". I'm a moral relativist in the sense that I believe in a derived morality, but if someone asked me "Do you think that stealing is bad" I'd have to say, "In the context of my personal moral system, without a doubt, its bad." > I thought that interest in Objectivism had waned but I now see that it > is still capturing and molding the "plastic" minds of our youth. Why shouldn't it? I'd say Rand's most important teachings, such as her "behavioral code" and her belief in capitalism, are dead on correct. I think her belief in absolute moral systems and the like is flawed, but that doesn't mean that objectivism doesn't have many merits to it. Rand taught that people should be rational and should try to rationally evaluate things for themselves. Unfortunately, later in her life she no longer practiced what she preached and expected people to take her word as revealed truth. So long as one takes a pancritical view of all things, and is willing to critically evaluate all of Rand's ideas rather than just swallowing them whole, you should be fine. > I realize that this treatment of Objectivism may offend several list > members. This is not my intent. If you've "practiced" Objectivism > for very long you already know the toll it takes on any human > relationship you've tried to maintain. I think you are dead wrong here. My relationships with other people have improved dramatically since I adopted the objectivist viewpoint. I suspect that you may have other relationship problems that you were blaming on the objectivist viewpoint, or that you were misapplying it. > I know that a true Objectivist will be able to withstand this > characterization and will respond: "Screw him, he's weak". Huh? I don't understand that. Perry Metzger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 11:42:52 MDT From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Meta:Rule vs. Being On Mr. Singh's List > Analogy: Feeling charitable, Able sets up a roadside shrine at which he > provides free samples of LSD. He calls his stand "McDonald's" and > decorates it with two golden arches. He's not off the hook just because he > acted without profit in mind, or because he did no more than set up the > shrine and let it run itself. Not so sure that is a good analogy. I think my analogy of the discussion party is much closer to what a newsgroup is. A discussion party requires a host also, but no trademark violation occurs. Besides, McDonald's trade mark only holds for foodservice, I believe. For instance, I could open "McDonald's Books" or something like that. Saying alt.extropians is trademark infringement is like saying comp.os.amiga is trademark infringe- ment. I do not think it is. If there is someone who KNOWS, please correct me. -- Testes saxi solidi! ********************** Podex opacus gravedinosus est! Stanton McCandlish, SysOp: Noise in the Void Data Center BBS IndraNet: 369:1/1 FidoNet: 1:301/2 Internet: anton@hydra.unm.edu Snail: 8020 Central SE #405, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108 USA Data phone: +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400 v32bis, N-8-1) Vox phone: +1-505-247-3402 (bps rate varies, depends on if you woke me up...:) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 13:50:06 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: Earth Day X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Stanton McCandlish says: > > I'm sorry, but Ray is correct. Virtually all the environmentalists > > I've met, and I've met A LOT, are leftists of one stripe or another, > ^^^^^^^^ > Key words Virtually every person on the planet forms opinions based on their experiences. For instance, I'd say that based on my experience, its dangerous to ride the New York City Subways alone at night. I have no scientific evidence for this claim -- but I'll readily bet you that a scientific study would back me up. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with forming conclusions based on experience. Its the only thing that makes human existance possible, for chrissake. I readily admit that its foolish to believe something if it is contradicted by scientific evidence -- but often such evidence is not readily at hand. To whit, I know of no good scientfic polls of the environmentalist community. However, I've spent a lot of time with a lot of environmentalists, and I've seen very few who were not leftists or even authoritarians. > > set. It might be an overgeneralization to say that they ALL are like > > this, but I think that "most" is a perfectly valid statement. There > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > It is only valid if the person speaking KNOWS or has in some way scientif- > ically analyzed "most" of them, which you do not/have not done. No, you are dead wrong, period. The statement can be valid whether or not evidence for it exists. Simply on a logical level, there is the fact that the truth or falsity of a statement requires no evidence -- although proving the truth or falsity does. The statement is valid or invalid regardless of the availability of evidence. On another level, however, there are guiding assumptions that one makes based on experience that are perfectly valid to make. For instance, I have no scientific evidence that you breathe oxygen. I've never seen you -- how could I make a scientific conclusion about you? None the less, the statement is almost certainly true. I'll bet $20,000, in the absense of what you would call "scientific evidence", that you breathe oxygen. Indeed, if you really spent your life only believing that for which you had a reproducable study before you, you'd cease to function. > > was one woman I once had a conversation with who seemed downright > > Irrelevant anectdote. Not irrelevant. Perfectly characteristic of the class of people I am describing. As I've noted, I've only asserted that *most* environmentalists are like this, not all. > I am almost embarrassed to have to say these things, they are so > obvious, and I have seen enough of both of your posts to know that > you both know better. You should know better. You've asserted a complete logical fallacy -- that a statement can be true only if evidence is in hand for it, and asserted that one should only believe that for which one has true proof. In any case, to demonstrate my belief in this particular assertion I have made, I will bet $300 that a scientifically conducted poll of contributing members of the Sierra Club will reveal that more than 66% of them hold views that would be characterized by an arbitration panel to be composed of three randomly selected members of the ExI board as "leftist". Perry Metzger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 13:15:26 -0500 From: Anonymous Extropians Sue to Block Unapproved Use of the Word "Extropy": Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted! Port Watson, Bahamas. The "Extropians" won their lawsuit today to block use of the words "extropy" and "extropians" in computer newsgroups, citing their copyright on these words, as well as on "exponent," "transhumanist," "uploading," "electronic cash," and "creole physics." (Recall that their attempt to copyright the term "singularity" was rejected last year, after Vernor Vinge objected and someone noted that the term had been in use in the mathematics literature for centuries. The Extropian Institute is appealing this decision.) In a related move, Microsoft has sued to block unauthorized use of the word "windows" in several computer newsgroups, including "comp.sys.windows," "alt.windows.text," and many newsgroups named "comp.windows.xxx." Microsoft spokesbimbo Melanie Myron added that Microsoft lawyers are looking into other terms they can sue to protect, including DOS, mouse, and "pen-based." Chairman Bill Gates stated that Microsoft was obligated to protect its copyrighted use of the term "windows." IBM Chairman and former cigarette vendor Lewis Gaerstner says IBM will now sue those using their copyrighted term "personal computer." Intel is looking into the possibility of suing to protect its term "microprocessor," first used by them in 1971. Analysts noted the similarity to the case involving the newsgroup "alt.fan.ren-and-stimpy," which is also the target of a lawsuit by the copyright owner. Analysts predict more such lawsuits and cite the following newsgroups as likely targets for similar lawsuits: - the several dozen newsgroups with "vms" in their name, as DEC has not authorized them. - all of the "macintosh" newsgroups, as Apple reasserts its copyright. - comp.sys.ibm, comp.sys.amiga, and so on. This alone will remove most of the comp.sys groups, except those groups, such as comp.sys.altair and comp.sys.sorcerer, which are related to defunct companies and have no lawyers. - alt.politics.libertarians infringes on the name "Libertarian Party" (and analysts note this applies to all other such political parties and related discussion groups). - fan groups, such as alt.fan.madonna and alt.sex.woody-allen, clearly fall under this ruling and will be rmgrouped immediately. The Society of Trial Lawyers has endorsed the moves of the Extropy Institute in enforcing its copyrights, saying "They have increased our business tremendously." Usenet Guru (TM: "Guru" was copyrighted by George Harrison in 1967) Gene Spafford was quoted as saying, "On the bright side, this decision will rmgroup over half of all the NetNews groups, for which we all ought to cheer loudly." Fans of "alt.flying.yogis" may be disappointed to learn, however, that the term "flying yogis" has been copyrighted by the Transcendental Meditation Institute and may not be used without their permission. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 13:06:59 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: Earth Day In <9304271734.AA09570@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Stanton McCandlish writes: |> > I'm sorry, but Ray is correct. Virtually all the environmentalists |> > I've met, and I've met A LOT, are leftists of one stripe or another, |> ^^^^^^^^ |> Key words Key indeed. How about, "all but a few of the common references that eco-activists cite are rotten with collectivist/entropist memes"? How about, "The very way that environmentalists use language and process statistics makes it difficult to avoid collectivist conclusions"? While many people are environmentalists and political centrists at the same time, the idea of applying non-statist, free-market approaches to environmental problems makes little headway with them. (This may be changing in some circles). Of course, a political "centrist" looks pretty lefty from where Perry and I are, too. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) / / ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 11:16:08 PDT From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: Meta:Rule vs. Being On Mr. Singh's List > > Was that as much a sarcastic flame against me as I think it was? (not that I > will "file charges", Perry does enough of that for all of us. Just curious, > since I cannot hear your tone of voice. > Stanton, Sarcastic, yes. Flame, no. My point, and my phrasing if I were in a kinder gentler mood, is that Time and Life magazines (for example) have trademarks on everyday words. The crux of the biscuit, if you will, is that they are trademarks in the context of their product. So while you may use "time" in everyday sentences, and you may call your cleaning service "Time Savers" without fear of trademark violation, you cannot start a newsletter, or any periodical publication called simply "Time". This is because one could reasonable construe the publication to come from *The* Time magazine, with whatever reputation you ascribe to that publisher, and any conclusions reached from reading the ersatz Time, would effect the reputation of the real "Time". Thus the ability to trademark everyday words in product contexts makes perfect sense. Sorry if my first exposition on this subject was less clear. Mark ============================================================================== | DoD #1.03144248E28 | Vote Libertarian | Mark DeSilets (408)437-5122 | | Redskins, Orioles | | desilets@sj.ate.slb.com | ============================================================================== | Defeat the wiretap chip proposal. Call your congresscritter. | ============================================================================== | Laete paschimur quos nos domare volunt | ============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 14:57:26 -0500 (EDT) From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Earth Day Lefty writes: [btw,thanks for reinterpreting my post] > Ray treats the list to a load of flame-bait regarding environmentalism and > communism, utterly devoid of any kind of factual support. He makes > extravagant claims regarding the beliefs of "environmentalists", presenting > the most extreme views he has ever come across as the views of the > mainstream. False. The proper context was set with the phrase "intellectual elite". > He completely fails to address the _single_ _point_ with which I have taken > exception: Krzys' equally unsupported contention that Lenin's birthday was > specifically and explicitly chosen as Earth Day. Oh? I claimed that it was most likely random chance, but that I would like to see investigated it further. > He then treats us to the following unwarranted assumption, to which I take > extreme exception, and which I would like the list manager to review. > > >> Until you do, I hope you won't take it the wrong way if I consider you to > >> be a complete and utter loon. > >> > >> I intend for this to be my last post on this particular subject. If Krzys' > >> can provide some credible backing for his claim, I will apologize to him. > > > > I think your message is starting to become a little flamish in tone. > >Let me guess, you're an environmentalist right? > > No, I'm not. But let me guess about _you_, Ray. You're highly prone to > jumping to unwarranted and unsupported conclusions and intolerant of any > opinions that don't happen to mesh with your own. Insinuating that someone is a ``complete and utter loon'' because of an observational correlation seems to be ``jumping to unwarranted and unsupported conclusions and intolerant of any opinions that don't happen to mesh with you own.'' -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:59:51 EDT From: sulko-m@acsu.buffalo.edu (Mark A. Sulkowski) Subject: PHIL/CULT: Objectivism From: Michael Clive Price >> The intensity of hatred for Ayn Rand displayed by some libertarians >> amazes me, and it is always done without stating the purpose of the >> reasons. [..] I don't believe that there are many libertarians who actually _hate_ Ayn Rand, but they are often put off by the cultish aspect of her movement, and possibly also the hatred that she and other Objectivists have displayed towards libertarians. Smear jobs like Schwartz's _Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty_ come to mind. >b) it's core beliefs are irrational and false, set by fiat > - absolute morals I would call them "objective morals", not "absolute" -- which suggests some kind Kantian spelled-out code of duty. Objectivism is really a morality of virtues, not pre-established rules. Of course, Ayn Rand's personal behavior may not have reinforced this view. I don't see how an objective view of morality is irrational, but I DO think that her own understanding of it needed much more work. A little scientific backing would have been much appreciated too. You are right about the "set by fiat" part. >So the question is, why do so many people get suckered in? Because >emotionality it satisfies the memetic needs of the religiously starved. >Many Objectivists join up on the rebound from conventional religion. This may very well be true. I have personally kept her philosophy in perspective by reading other philosophy books. An example is _Nature and Liberty: An Aristotelian Defense of Liberal Order_. That book also explores the objective morality concept as it applies to society. The analysis is somewhat different from the Objectivist one, and the differences keep me thinking of different ways to approach the subject. This has kept my mind free and sharp by providing me with a good memetic innoculation. >All Objectivists I've met, FTF, have displayed glaring ignorance of >their cognitive structures, motivations etc. As a result they are >simply unable to rationally evaluate their position in the world. I know what you mean. They have built up powerful memetic defenses. Since all knowledge other than that approved by Ayn Rand is 'tainted' by altruism/collectivism (in their minds) then they tend to ignore that knowledge. >In one case this lead to the death of the individual. Huh? Could you give details? >> Krzys' > >Mike Price price@price.demon.co.uk > AS member (21/3/93) =============================================================================== | |\ /| | "But we must not follow those who advise us, being men, to | | \\ // | think of human things, and, being mortal, of mortal things, | | \\// | but must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal..." | | Mark \/enture | - Aristotle, _The Nicomachean Ethics_ | =============================================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 13:53:13 -0600 From: twb3@midway.uchicago.edu (Tom Morrow) Subject: Meta:Rule vs. Being On Mr. Singh's List >Saying alt.extropians is >trademark infringement is like saying comp.os.amiga is trademark infringe- >ment. I do not think it is. If there is someone who KNOWS, please correct >me. >Stanton McCandlish You'll never find anyone who "KNOWS"; the topic just does not allow that sort of certaintly. Legal uncertainty, while an almost everpresent condition, is especially prevalent with regard to intellectual property, and still more so with regard to the Net. All we can do is review the arguments and try to estimate their plausibility. But this isn't really the place for such a discussion. You said that you would take this offline, Stanton. Please do so. The existence of newsgroups that use trademarks proves nothing. There may be licensing agreements between the concerned parties, or the trademark holders may have decided not to litigate. There are very good reasons *not* to litigate in such cases, as it turns out. But, again, this isn't the place to review them. T.O. Morrow -- twb3@midway.uchicago.edu Vice President: ExI -- The Extropy Institute Law & Politics Editor: EXTROPY -- Journal of Transhumanist Thought ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 15:25:28 -0500 (EDT) From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Earth Day Stanton McCandlish writes: > This is nothing but bigotted overgeneralization. And your view is very obvi- > ously biased. Citing newsgroup flamewars is hardly 'evidence'. Someone > recently suggested a reading of Chomsky to me. I already read Chomsky. Maybe > you should too. And Korzybsky. I am quite frankly surprised-as-hell to see > something like this on the list, which has so far been mostly reasonable > stuff and personal bickering, not sheer and unsupportable prejudice. Overgeneralization? I clearly suggested the context I was talking about which was mainly the intellectual leaders of the environmental movement, and the extremists. The average environmentalist is most likely a political moderate brainwashed by public service announcements, and the educational system. Since you mentioned Korzybsky, let me try to rephrase my statement into a weaker, but more politcally ``acceptable'' one: "Observations from the various environmentalists I have talked to in real life, on my campus, and in sci.environment, lead me to conclude that with high probability, political environmentalists are leftist/communist in their views and anti-capitalist." There has never, to my knowledge, been a poll of environmentalists, so we are left with two options. 1) either make no conclusions about the environmental movement's political idealogy, or 2) make statements based on available evidence in the press and from personal experience Since I view environmentalists as a possible threat to life extension and my personal lifestyle, I can not take the standpoint of making no conclusions. (BTW, I have read some of Chomsky's literature. I like to know my opponents. I have also skimmed Al Gore's book (read a few chapters in the library). It's just more evidence for my conclusions) > > The environmental movement also has a sneaky propaganda scare-tactic of > > showing nuclear test explosion footage interleaved with images of cooling > > towers on nuke plants. Presumably, this scares people into associating > > nuclear energy with nuclear weapon proliferation. Every so often, > > images of industrial assembly lines are mixed in too. > > Ever think maybe it just had to do with polution, the far-right work ethic, > and the idiocy of the military-industrial complex? And no I am not one of > your "eco-idiots" defending pet theories. It's just that the illogic of > your post shines thru like a beacon. This is not a flame, it is an observa- > tion. No, showing alternating images of cooling towers and nuke explosions is sheer propaganda. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:01:09 EDT From: Brian.Hawthorne@East.Sun.COM (Brian Holt Hawthorne - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: Earth Day In response to Perry's recent assertion that most environmentalists are leftists and authoritarians, I wanted to make a couple of points. I am an environmentalist myself, but also a staunch supporter of individual liberty. I say this not to refute his assertion about "most" environmentalists he has met, but simply to give an additional data point. In fact, I have to agree with Perry that most of my "fellow" environmentalists are leftists in the sense that they believe that the market can not protect the environment, and that the government must restrain individuals and corporations in order to provide such protection. They are authoritarians in the sense that they believe such restraint is not only necessary but morally acceptable. These observations sadden me, as I believe that these people are misguided. Not only are the unecessarily restricting our freedoms, but they are doing just those things which will guarantee eventual environmental degradation. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:46:53 CDT From: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn) Subject: EPIST: Why do formal systems work? Peter McCluskey writes: > "Occam's Razor", by Anselm Blumer, Andrzej Ehrenfeucht, David Haussler, > and Manfred K. Warmuth, in Information Processing Letters 24 (1987) > pp 377-380, also reprinted in "Readings in Machine Learning" > by Jude W. Shavlik and Thomas G. Dietterich. One quote from it: > > "Lemma: Given any function f in a hypothesis class of r hypotheses, > the probability that any hypothesis with error larger than epsilon is > consistent with a sample of f of size m is less than r*(1 - epsilon)^m." What does this have to do with Occam's razor? It just says that a hypothesis that covers the sample is likely to have small error -- it says nothing about the complexity of the hypothesis. For this to be a formalization of Occam's razor, the probability should include the coding length of the hypothesis -- and be smaller for smaller hypotheses. > There is another article in "Readings in Machine Learning" about > VC dimensions which is closely related to this subject. Interesting. The VC dimension is a measure of the expressiveness of a hypothesis language with respect to a particular set of examples (here the largest set that the language can divide into arbitrary labelings). This says nothing about the "simplicity" of the hypotheses expressible by that language... derek ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:56:05 CDT From: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn) Subject: Earth Day Sorry to interrupt the escalating flame war, but I was trying to see if I am an 'environmentalist' or not... (to see if my status in that regard fits the theory about leftists). Um, how do I tell? That is, by what criteria do you label somebody an "environmentalist"? And it can't be some of the same criteria you use to label somebody a "leftist", or else the conclusion that environmentalists are leftists is a tautology. derek ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 16:58:36 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: RAND: Warning: Objectivism may be hazardous to your health (was MONEY: Objectivists and Gold) X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Ed Lane says: > ed> I know that a true Objectivist will be able to withstand this > ed> characterization and will respond: "Screw him, he's weak". > > pm> Huh? I don't understand that. > > Then maybe you're not a "true Objectivist" (spelled with a big "O"). Well, I'm afraid that my not being a true objectivist is not relevant to the fact that what you posted was opaque and non-gramatical. I have no idea what you really meant. Since you refuse to explain, I will have to guess that what you meant is that objectivists are horrid people that you can't get along with because they believe in screwing the weak. I have friends who are big-O Objectivists who do not fit this description at all. > ed> I realize that this treatment of Objectivism may offend several list > ed> members. This is not my intent. If you've "practiced" Objectivism > ed> for very long you already know the toll it takes on any human > ed> relationship you've tried to maintain. > > pm> I think you are dead wrong here. My relationships with other people > pm> have improved dramatically since I adopted the objectivist viewpoint. > pm> I suspect that you may have other relationship problems that you were > pm> blaming on the objectivist viewpoint, or that you were misapplying it. > > I can see at least two (2) other explanations for ~your~ conclusion: > > (1) I will not mention the first because it is inflamatory. > > (2) What you may be "practicing" is some other form of objectivism, NOT > the one described and practiced by Ayn Rand. I could give the same explanation: that you weren't an Objectivist, and thats the reason it didn't work for you. In other words, your answer was no answer at all. Semantically null. > "Simplify, but don't over-simplify" -- Einstein Perhaps you should read your own signature quotes. Perry Metzger ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:15:06 PDT From: Eli Brandt Subject: Earth Day > From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) > "Virtually all of the computer scientists I've met, and I've met a _lot_, > believe that uploading of consciousness is a crock." > > "Virtually all of the biologists I've met, and I've met a _lot_, feel that > cryonic suspension cannot possibly work." > > Yet you are willing to characterize your particular boogeyman, those > terrible _environmentalists_, on this basis. I'm frankly surprised. This is a lousy parallel. From the statements you give, one might decide that "most computer scientists think uploading is bogus" or "most biologists think cryonics is bogus". One could not, OTOH, conclude that "uploading is a crock" or "cryonics cannot work". The former sort of conclusion is the one Perry is making: "most `environmentalists' have leftist leanings". He is not saying that he concludes that leftism is correct, which is what you rightly argue he cannot say. > Lefty (lefty@apple.com) Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 14:29:38 PDT From: Eli Brandt Subject: Earth Day > From: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn) > That is, by what criteria do you label somebody an "environmentalist"? > And it can't be some of the same criteria you use to label somebody > a "leftist", or else the conclusion that environmentalists are leftists > is a tautology. Nevertheless, the word is almost universally understood to refer to those of leftward persuasion. This is not the doing of any frothing gun-nut extropians, it's a consequence of the popular understanding of environmentalism. I am technically an `environmentalist', in that I share many of the ultimate goals associated with that word. I suspect most people are. But the term is understood to imply particular process beliefs, so I've learned not to refer to myself as an "environmentalist" unless I'm prepared for a heated debate on my right to the label -- no mandatory sterilization, no hysteria about nuclear power, supports trading in the `right' to rape the planet; what kind of korporate scumsucker am I? To be honest, I often provoke this sort of debate for purposes of general consciousness- raising, but the fact remains that most people don't consider a concern for the environment as sufficient to make me an "environmentalist". Worse, they say I'm lying; if I really cared I'd be bombing research laboratories. > derek Eli ebrandt@jarthur.claremont.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 17:45:19 EDT From: Andy Wilson Subject: Earth Day From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 15:25:28 -0500 (EDT) ... Overgeneralization? I clearly suggested the context I was talking about which was mainly the intellectual leaders of the environmental movement, and the extremists. The average environmentalist is most likely a political moderate brainwashed by public service announcements, and the educational system. Since you mentioned Korzybsky, let me try to rephrase my statement into a weaker, but more politcally ``acceptable'' one: "Observations from the various environmentalists I have talked to in real life, on my campus, and in sci.environment, lead me to conclude that with high probability, political environmentalists are leftist/communist in their views and anti-capitalist." Excuse me, but how can you use nebulous words like "environmentalist", "leftist", "capitalist" and "communist" in the same breath as mentioning Korzybsky? Did you read Korzybsky in the dark? It should be clear to anyone of any political stripe that we face potentially serious environmental problems. Skeptics certainly have their place to provide a sense of balance, but I tend to give the planet the benefit of the doubt. In this important issue, I would hope common sense would prevail over ideological hatred. Certainly anyone interested in life extension or cryonics should be interested in ensuring that the planet is habitable. ... No, showing alternating images of cooling towers and nuke explosions is sheer propaganda. Denying the connection between the proliferation of nuclear energy and the corresponding proliferation of nuclear weapons is absurd. Most of the newest members of the nuclear weapons club originally got their technology in the form of nuclear power plants. Granted that is not the whole story, but there is a connection. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- Andy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 15:39:32 MDT From: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Meta:Rule vs. Being On Mr. Singh's List > gentler mood, is that Time and Life magazines (for example) have trademarks > on everyday words. The crux of the biscuit, if you will, is that they > are trademarks in the context of their product. So while you may use > "time" in everyday sentences, and you may call your cleaning service > "Time Savers" without fear of trademark violation, you cannot start a > newsletter, or any periodical publication called simply "Time". This Right, this is just like my McDonalds example. My (admittedly fuzzy) point to the whole line of questionning is that I don't see how ExI could be consi- dering a use such as "alt.extropians" to be an infringement, since no products, services, businesses, or organizations are involved. I dare say if someone even started a magazine called Exponent, ExI would be just s.o.l., unless that mag tries to pass itself off as Extropian (rather than say, a mathematics journal etc.) I can see where alt.extropians is irritating to some, since it IS purporting to be extropian, but not being any sort of organization or legal body, well...I just don't see as there is much of a case. It is like trying to sue me for putting out a personals ad that I'm looking for an extropian girlfriend or something. well anway, I admit that I don't know too much about this sort of thing, but just basic logic tells me that all the kings lawyers and all the kings laws couldn't do anything about alt.extropians. Besides like I said, instead of huddling here bickering about it, why not got TAKE IT OVER. Start up 27 dis- cussions of advanced mathematics and logic, of legal implications of cryo- genics, of the interrelations and conflicts between GS and Objectivism, etc., and most of the flyin' yogis will fly away to alt.paranormal, and wow guess what you have an interesting and useful newsgroup to play with. > effect the reputation of the real "Time". Thus the ability to trademark > everyday words in product contexts makes perfect sense. Sorry if my > first exposition on this subject was less clear. Got it. I knew that already (in fuzzier terms), but Exponent is not a product (as far as I have seen) from ExI, so what sort of thing could infringe this trademark? What I meant by "how do you tradmark exponent?!" is that I don't see anything called "exponent" that this trademark could apply to, and could thus be infringed. I mean certainly regular words can be trademarked FOR a specific THING (product, service, etc.), like Tide and Cheer, and Windows and Lotus. -- Testes saxi solidi! ********************** Podex opacus gravedinosus est! Stanton McCandlish, SysOp: Noise in the Void Data Center BBS IndraNet: 369:1/1 FidoNet: 1:301/2 Internet: anton@hydra.unm.edu Snail: 8020 Central SE #405, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87108 USA Data phone: +1-505-246-8515 (24hr, 1200-14400 v32bis, N-8-1) Vox phone: +1-505-247-3402 (bps rate varies, depends on if you woke me up...:) ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0222 ****************************************