From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Tue May 4 19:02:05 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA06848; Tue, 4 May 93 19:02:03 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA27489; Tue, 4 May 93 19:02:00 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Tue, 4 May 93 21:56:36 -0400 Message-Id: <9305050156.AA12750@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Tue, 4 May 93 21:55:47 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <9305050155.AA12740@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0242 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on May 5, 373 P.N.O. [01:56:35 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Wed, 5 May 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0242 Today's Topics: DAISY: the death of Hal 9000 [1 msgs] LIFE-X: cryonics [2 msgs] Liberty is... [2 msgs] META: Circumspect Comments on Recent Events [1 msgs] META: METZGER v. MOORE [2 msgs] Meta: Judement(s) [1 msgs] Meta: Privatizing Judges [4 msgs] Moore, Singh, Worley etc. [2 msgs] Moore, Singh, Worley etc. (reputation) [1 msgs] PHIL: ethics vs. morals [1 msgs] POLL: Expertise [1 msgs] Rational (racial) discriminationRomana says: [1 msgs] Reputation [1 msgs] TECH: Would `dark fiber' be vulnerable to jamming? [1 msgs] extropy [1 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: 51280 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 04 May 1993 15:01:15 -0500 (EST) From: KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: Rational (racial) discriminationRomana says: Romana says: Correlation is not causation. I agree, agree, agree, do not argue that. I am trying to point out thta crime may indeed cause poverty (directly -- perpetrator of the crime may lose reputation, job, go to jail, etc.), indirectly (if there is lot of crime in your area, businesses will move out, nobody will start new ones). And ... correlation may be caused by that. OK? In fact, libertarians argue that if the government is acting in a criminal manner, everybody will become poorer. Krzys' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 11:25:31 PDT From: mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com (mark m 623) Subject: Moore, Singh, Worley etc. She said this so I said that. That wasn't a flame, that was *Satire*. I think that judgement was too harsh, compared to a *serious* disruptor like fill-in-the-blank's X's was minor.... Nyah nyah nyah Well, we've heard from the usual suspects, does anyone else out there find the concept of Extropians wanting (demanding) that signals they don't like be eliminated? You don't *have* to read all of your mail. It's not like loud voices in a movie theatre. Don't reply to flames and they'll burn out of their own accord. And you will learn a valuable lesson in self-control. Sticks and stones, nu? Final note: as part of my own Extropian growth I go out of my way to read/ hear/see things I don't (think) I agree with or like. This led to a tran- scendental insight; some people with views diametrically opposed to my own are intelligent, even very intelligent. And sometimes (gasp) hearing a cogent, well crafted argument in opposition to my own beliefs has led to reevaluation and going back to the books. More often it leads me to a healthy uncertainty about my own infallibility. And hearing a sloppy, didactic, jingoist argument can send me into giggle fits or Wagnerian oratory that gives my wife giggle fits. Golly, I hope this doesn't hurt my reputation. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 14:57:59 EDT From: Andy Wilson Subject: LIFE-X: cryonics From: Stanton McCandlish Date: Tue, 4 May 93 2:24:35 MDT [...] Sounds good, I do find the matter interesting, but I still hope someone has seen some recent research on the 120 yr drop-dead point. Seems to me, if that is not taken care of, all the cryonics in the world won't help. Put it this way: suppose you make it to 90, then croak from cancer, and are frozen. They revive you in century, but lo and behold, they still have not fixed this problem, but they have cured cancer, and get you feeling ok in a few years. So you live another decade or 2 and die AGAIN, this time permanently, because every time they try to revive you, you just keep kicking the bucket. Even ignoring the expense, seems to me it would not be worth the effort. I want that 120 yr. BS out of the way soon. Too bad I am not a biol- ogist with lots of funding. Would certainly be my main line of work, given the choice. >sigh< Hmmm...there is a finite amount of resources out there to be spent on life extension. Some amount of these will be spent on cryonics, some will be spent on gerontological research. Certainly more should be spent on the latter IMHO. The problem is that gerontological breakthroughs can only make money as products *after* they are developed, so what is needed is forward-thinking investors. Am I alone here in thinking that it makes more sense to be frozen *before* death? That's already been proven to work for frogs at least. Also, having just your head frozen looks like a scam to me. Curing terminal diseases like cancer or AIDS seems easier than keeping a head alive. Not that that won't eventually be accomplished, but think of what you would miss in the meantime... Andy Wilson Thinking Machines Corp. In keeping with the extropian life extension spirit, and since I just got to see the "director's cut" version finally, here's a great quote from _Bladerunner_ (Roy Batty to Dr. Eldon Tyrell): "I want more life, fucker!" -- 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, 04 May 1993 15:35:45 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: LIFE-X: cryonics X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Andy Wilson says: > Am I alone here in thinking that it makes more sense to be frozen *before* > death? Yes. Cryonics, as currently performed, is a highly damaging operation. You don't want to do it unless you have absolutely no choice -- that is, unless you are about to die without it. > Also, having just your head frozen looks like a scam to me. Curing > terminal diseases like cancer or AIDS seems easier than keeping a > head alive. The idea is not to "keep a head alive". Its to clone a new body or something similar. The problems associated with freezing are sufficiently severe that any technology capable of reviving a patient frozen with current technology will almost axiomatically be capable of such a thing. The sort of infracellular repair required to fix the freezing damage makes producing a decerebrate clone and putting your brain in it, curing ageing, curing cancer, or any other similar problem look like a piece of cake by comparison. Perhaps Tim Freeman's Cryonics FAQ ought to be posted here? Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 14:03:47 MDT From: Mark_Muhlestein@Novell.COM (Mark Muhlestein) Subject: Moore, Singh, Worley etc. (reputation) Somebody calling himself "mark m" writes, among other things: > Golly, I hope this doesn't hurt my reputation. In the interest of my own reputation, please note that I, Mark_Muhlestein@novell.com did not write that message. Mark_Muhlestein@novell.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 13:27:10 PDT From: Robin Hanson Subject: Meta: Privatizing Judges Tom Morrow writes: >>In a real PPL, arbitration can be done by any member (or panel) >>willing to serve and agreeable to the disputants, . . . > >This is somewhat misleading, as it implies that disputants can always >choose their arbitrators afresh. But a PPL may be set up such that the >arbitrator or private judge is chosen long before the dispute arises, >without any option to opt for another judge. Members of a PPL may find >this precommitment strategy offers special benefits, and thus freely agree >to it. That's all we need for a PPL, the hallmark of which is that it >arises through explicitly consensual arrangements. Hmm.. I can't see how you could ever lose by agreeing ahead of time that judge A will judge the case, unless both sides agree later to another judge. In any case, what could it harm if this list allowed people to contract around the official list judges? If Perry thinks Harry is too slow and long-winded, he could announce the always-concise Krzys (assuming he were willing) as his prefered judge, and if he had a dispute with anyone else who had similarly announced, then Krzys would judge that case. Just like people can sometimes contract around U.S. courts now. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: 04 May 93 16:18:05 EDT From: Sandy <72114.1712@CompuServe.COM> Subject: META: METZGER v. MOORE _________________________________________________________________ SANDY SANDFORT ssandfort@attmail.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Extropians, I am very disappointed. In spite of many more important issues, the list has been dominated recently by various pissing contests involving the use and misuse of list rules, what constitutes a proper PPL solution, how many warnings can dance on the head of a pin, etc. I would like to help move this discussion along with the least possible increase in noise. It seems to me, we are dealing with two types of offenses. Those which represent a general misuse of the list bandwidth, and those which constitute impolite behavior between individuals. An example of the first offense would be Dale Worley arguing the basics or most anything posted by Pandit Singh. The second sort of offense is your garden-variety flame. I think we need to address these two problems very differently. MISUSE OF BANDWIDTH--These offenses are best handled--only after complaints from list members--at the list administrator level. Manifestations of the problem are objectively rather obvious. This list has an agenda. Off-topic discussions, and discussions which dismiss or ignore Extropian basics are not suitable for the list. Period. Legalistic application of sanctions by the list administrator should be fairly obvious and uncontroversial. IMPOLITE BEHAVIOR TOWARD INDIVIDUALS--I think recent events have shown the capricious and unfair results that come from mechanical application of list rules to interpersonal disputes. Carol Moore gets one of three warnings for a "setting the record straight" post. If we were entirely consistent, my friend Tim May would also get a warning for his "Meta: Why I didn't file charges...." post, today. After all, isn't he attempting to "set the record straight"? But that's different, isn't it? Tim is a respected a responsible Extropian poster. So we cut him more slack than the reviled Ms. Moore. Doesn't this make you a little uncomfortable? It does me. And it's not the only recent example of an Extropian double standard. (Lest someone get the wrong idea; I DON'T think Tim should get a warning. But I don't think Carol should have, either.) PRIVATE SOLUTIONS--I would rather have a list where members handled their disputes more privately. I am deeply offended by the self-appointed narcs who run to the list administrator for every real or imagined slight to their--or someone else's--ego. This does not mean, however, that we should have no formal mechanisms for conflict resolution. Just that they should do it more privately. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION--In the future, I would like to see list combatants voluntarily submitting themselves to binding arbitration rather than tattling to the teacher. The mechanism for doing this is simplicity, itself. When it becomes clear to list members that the flames are out of control, they can--via private e-mail--propose arbitration to their antagonist. If the antagonist refuses, the member can either post that fact to the general list, or simply fall back on the current system and "bring charges." If, on the other hand, the adversary agrees, they may then choose an arbitrator who is agreeable to both of them. If they can't agree on an arbitrator, they each choose their own arbitrator and the two arbitrators pick the final arbitrator. The arbitrator's decision will be final as to the parties. Anyone who does not abide by the arbitrator's decision would be referred to the list administrator for disciplinary. BUT WHO WILL BELL THE CAT?--The nice thing about picking an arbitrator (if their willing) from this list, is the abundance of intelligent, learned, reasonable people here. There are many (a majority?) of Extropians who could do an excellent job of finding solutions that flame war combatants could live with. If asked, I am willing to arbitrate list conflicts. How about you? If you would like to help settle disputes (off list!) between your fellow list members, why not let everyone know it in your signature? "Can't we all just get along?" S a n d y (arbitration volunteer) >>>>>>>> Please address e-mail to: ssandfort@attmail.com <<<<<<<< _________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 14:06:34 PDT From: desilets@sj.ate.slb.com (Mark Desilets) Subject: Moore, Singh, Worley etc. mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com (mark m 623), a poster otherwise unheard from gibes: [ complains about having to read complaints about having to read ..... ] > > Golly, I hope this doesn't hurt my reputation. > Sir, what reputation was that? 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, 4 May 93 16:19:52 CDT From: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn) Subject: META: METZGER v. MOORE Sandy Sanfort writes that he is very disappointed that we spend so much time niggling about list rules (then goes on at length to add to that discussion, but that's not what I'm writing about). Rather, in non-authoritarian "adhocracies", isn't this bound to be the way things happen? When there's some sense (justified or not) that the "rules" are open for debate -- surprise! debate there is! Especially among people with larger-than-normal interests in politics, procedure, and law (albeit nontraditional). Doesn't mean much to me. I think that only two people have ever been forcefully removed from the list (since I joined anyway). Those two may even be the same person! So it's a non-issue to me, and rather dull. derek though these posts are dull as dirt, I defend to deanimation the right to post them [properly prefixed, of course!] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 13:55:05 PDT From: mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com (mark m 623) Subject: Reputation To follow up on Mark Muhlestein's concern: The mark m in question is Mark W. McFadden (mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com) Sorry y'all, I didn't intend to be anonymous. I didn't think it mattered, but in actuality I screwed up. Never talk on the phone while composing mail. But while I'm here.... I'm the ex-chairman of Region 66, Libertarian Party of California. My wife is the new Chair. I'm also an Environmentalist (Eco-fascist, Ecofreak, etc.) I don't think Ayn Rand was a very good novelist. I got my inspiration from Robert A. Heinlein. My training as a martial artist has warped my perceptions of firearms; I now support the Second Amendment arguments with all the enthusiasm of an ACLU lawyer defending a Nazi's right to march. It's the Second Amendment, it's not negotiable. I just don't like the results. I'm a computer professional. I can't be very specific because what I do isn't. I'm not a programmer but I troubleshoot programmer's problems. I'm not an engineer but I troubleshoot their tools. I'm not a System Administrator, but I keep the network going. I'm not *in* R&D, but I support all R&D efforts for my company. I put out fires (HW & SW), have been called a guru. I prefer Renaissance Man. I'd put my unquestioning faith in the Free Market just as soon as I see one. I think anarchy is a Good Thing. I know, let's build a big platform out past everyone's 12 mile limit, print currency, print stamps, petition for membership in the U.N., and have an honest to goodness Libertarian (state?). Mark McFadden "America.....building a better future, with YOUR money" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 18:31:22 EDT From: chrism@ksr.com Subject: TECH: Would `dark fiber' be vulnerable to jamming? Carl Feynman wrote: > I should warn people not to take this article by Gilder too seriously. > About three years ago, he published an article in Upside magazine > about the future of massively parallel computers. It proposed > revolutionary changes in the field, which went against the > conventional wisdom and which only he was clever enough to discern. > Alas, it was replete with factual errors, all of which supported his > theories. I don't see any reason to believe that his "dark dumb > fiber" article is any more intellectually honest. I have to challenge Carl's assessment. In Gilder's Upside piece ("Hillis versus the Law of the Microcosm", January 1992) there are some minor errors, and a number of things that I disagree with, but I cannot agree that it is either "replete with factual errors" or intellectually dishonest. And I think that to dismiss it as "against the conventional wisdom" reveals a bias on Carl's part. Gilder describes an ongoing bet between Danny Hillis, founder and chief scientist of Thinking Machines Corp., and Gordon Bell, formerly of Digital Equipment Corp. and more recently involved with a number of startups. Bell bet Hillis that in the last quarter of calendar year 1995 more sustained mflops (millions of floating operations per second) will be be shipped in machines using modest amounts of parallelism (less than or equal to 100 data streams) than in those with massive parallelism (greater than or equal to 1000 streams.) The bet only applies to supercomputers, defined as machines costing more than $1M and used for scientific applications. The more controversial part of the article goes on to side with Bell in asserting that Hillis's most recent machine, the CM-5, is "fundamentally flawed" and arguing that Bell has made a second bet with Hillis by backing the approach of Kendall Square Research Corp., a rival of TMC. >From Gilder's article: "To Bell, the key issue is between multicomputers and multiprocessors. Multicomputers are merely teams of computers interconnected with one another. They may be packaged in one box or, conveivably, on one board, or they may be spread across the country. But they are identifiable by their seperate memories and operating systems. ... Multiprocessors, on the other hand, are single computers with multiple microprocessors, all of which access a single memory address space -- no matter where the memories are located -- and are coordinated by one operating system. The key advantage of the multiprocessor is that it presents a unitary machine to the programmer and promotes the use of a single-shared-memory programming model." Gilder then goes on to describe the supercomputer designed by KSR, which is a more finely-grained multiprocessor, and which Bell and Gilder both favor over the CM-5's coarsely-grained multicomputer approach. ("fine-grained" versus "coarse-grained" refers to trade-offs between the number of processors and the speed and complexity of each processor) Following publication of the article the industry underwent a bit of a tempest in a teacup, which even led to an article in the New York Times describing the uproar. So in the March issue of Upside there appeared letters from a number of Gilder's defenders and detractors. Chief among the detractors was David Patterson, of the University of Berkely and "risc" fame. It was Patterson who claimed that Gilder's argument contained numerous factual errors. However, a number of Patterson's claims are themselves flawed, and Patterson is not without bias in the matter. Patterson made major contributions to the architecture of Sun's Sparc(tm) risc microprocessor, and he subsequently widely promoted the architecture and was a factor in the selection of this processor for Thinking Machine's CM-5. So it is important to remember that Patterson himself has a stake in the debate when reading his arguments. On the other hand, Professor William Dally of MIT's AI Lab (Hillis' own alma mater) supports Gilder saying: "As Gilder points out, the mechanisms needed for efficient communication and naming in a massively parallel computer are not to be found in an off-the-shelf microprocessor. ... To be efficient in a parallel computer, a processor must be tightly integrated with the [communications] network, able to map addresses cleanly across processing nodes and able to switch processes instantly to avoid idling while waiting on the network. These mechanisms are not to be found in off-the-shelf processors that are optimized for desktop computers." So with such widely differing opinions in the industry, I consider Carl's dismissal of Gilder as "against the conventional wisdom" to be premature. But then again, I should point out that Carl is a former employee of TMC and a friend of Danny Hillis, whereas I am presently employed by KSR. So I have to admit that I would like nothing better than to see Hillis *win* his bet with Gordon Bell, by virtue of having more mflops of KSR machines shipping than of conventional supercomputers by 1995. ;-) -chrism (Chris Moriondo, chrism@ksr.com) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Harassment is any conduct which creates an offensive environment." If anyone is offended by this article, then am I guilty of harassment? -- Alan Dershowitz ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 18:51:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: META: Circumspect Comments on Recent Events Thanks for all the interesting comments on "recent events." It has given me faith in private law. (See footnote) And I am taking certain advice given by some of you. I have also asked a question asked by Ms. Schwartz. (I'm fairly confident I know the correct answer, but for obvious reasons I will wait for "official" confirmation). Also, there have been numerous comments about my habit of flaming on Libernet. About 2/3 of those alleged flames had something to do with the abortion issue and my sometimes outrageous pro-choice tactics. Lately I've been a bit flamy on the "Let's remove the LP pledge and platform" issue (some of it abortion-rights related). The rest result because I state a semi-controversial opinion (especially about the relations between the sexes), certain individuals take offense at what they THINK I mean, and off we go. . . (If I missed something, please feel free to inform me by private mail.) I have consciously avoided any debates on abortion, the LP and sex relations on this list in order to avoid that problem. Also, now that I have realized that list is not as tolerant of stream-of-consciousness-far-out-speculations as I initially thought from a few days of reading other's posts, I have desisted. My preferred way to deal with the problem of low quality posts and flaming is to have an "editor"(or a sophisticated filter) simply direct posts to an "A" list or a "B" list. This way there is discrimination without censorship. Of course, economics limits this option. Thanks again for reaffirming my faith in justice! ---------------------- Footnote: Perhaps I should have done a "biography" at the beginning and mentioned things like my 9/92 "polycentric law" oriented paper and panel appearance at an American University College of Law conference on Gender, Race and the Law. Although the panel on Moral Basis of the Law included 3 law professors, as well as myself, I received most of the questions and sold 10 of my papers. (At some point I'm going to boil it down and submit it to feminist law journals.) A publisher is interested in my book-in-progress CONSCIOUSNESS AND POLITICS which advocates polycentric law in a politically decentralized world. (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu ;-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 93 23:04:09 GMT From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) Subject: PHIL: ethics vs. morals >From: Stanton McCandlish >>From: sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk (Stephen J. Whitrow) >>As Mike Price says, absolute morals is a meaningless >>concept. The moral relativists are totally right (although moral >>absolutists must be using another definition). >I don't know about "totally right", but the main point seems sound to me. >Don't s'pose you know just what that other definition is? No. S'pose that would depend on which moral absolutist you asked: "X, Y, Z...... are a class of actions that are universally morally wrong. And morals and ethics are the same thing." >>On the other hand, there is an absolute code of ethics that I believe all >>civilised advanced intelligent life would voluntarily conform to. Do not >>kill or initiate force without provocation. >This is interesting, and one of the things that I hoped would be brought up. >One of the points of my proto-essay is ethics tend to vary *by degree*, >rather than by detail. For instance (to get back on track here), what >constitutes "provocation"? If someone initiates force then the defender has the right to use whatever force is necessary for self-defence. But merely being from another tribe is surely no excuse for bloodshed. >>What if a society placed a >>very low value on life? This seems extremely unlikely except in primitive, >>barbaric cultures. And in any case, shouldn't it be the right of the >>individual to decide how greatly he / she values life and good health, >>rather than the primitive society making the decision on behalf of its >>members? >Well to digress a bit, I'd suggest that that is an ideal, but not necessarily >a "truth" (whatever that is). I think our own modern, civilized culture has >a pretty low esteem for life...and the notion that cultures that are not of >the "modern" Western mold are "primitive, barbaric cultures" has been largely >tossed out the window. Certainly many cultures at least SEEM to be more >violent than ours, but then again the Trobriand islanders didn't invent >the nuclear bomb or the gas chamber or the machine gun. Kinda balances out. >Such cultures MIGHT be more "personally" (in-your-face) violent, but our >culture has killed more people than any other in history (by "our" I mean >European, though I suppose that is more of a metaculture.) I'm not trying to suggest that "modern / Western" cultures are less barbaric than islanders' etc. I'm particularly interested in the ethical system we will follow after the advent of nanotechnology, when we have conquered 'natural' death, disease and aging, have augmented brains, and are travelling through interstellar space on our way to the Far Edge Party. It's true that our culture doesn't have an amazingly high esteem for life. Present-day humans (apart from Extropians and the like-minded minority of course) are lumbered with a deathist / mortalist ideology. It's the duty of all individuals to be sacrificed after reproducing their genes (shame about the memes, and more importantly, their minds). Since everyone has to die anyway, even murder may not always be wrong. Certainly, it's great to have people selflessly sacrifice their lives in wars for instance, for the greater good of their state. There's nothing precious about life...... [Speculation warning: Beyond the "Singularity", all speculation becomes very speculative.] But provided the human race progresses, some day this sort of trash will be rejected -- enlightenment will arrive. Once natural death is conquered and the deathists are relegated to a rapidly decreasing minority of diehards -- a stubborn, dying breed that are the butt of numerous jokes -- I see the non-initiation of force ethic taking on a whole new importance. People who are going to live for a very long time will have to be more careful how they treat each other. They can afford to be more patient in fulfilling their goals (thus diminishing the pressures for conflict), will be more concerned with their reputation, will have more responsibility for the future, will know that over a long period past crimes are more likely to catch up with them, and will be less likely to risk their lives over some 'conflict'. >>So this code of ethics is somehow absolute, an eternal Truth rooted in the >>nature of civilised intelligent life and the universe. Whenever a violation >>occurs, justice has not prevailed. >Not sure *I* am willing to go that far, but... For one thing, we know nothing >about any sort of intelligent life but ourselves, unless one wishes to include >other primates, and dolphins/whales. And for another, how can something that >is a human code of behaviour have anything to do with eternal Truths of the >universe. Not saying it doesn't but I am asking for a clarification/expansion >of this idea before I am ready to accept (or reject) it. I referred to 'civilised intelligent life'; although many people place humans in this category I only include transhumans and above. And any independently evolved aliens who have already smashed the natural death limitation / nanotech barrier. I believe it's likely that all truly civilised advanced intelligent life would have independently arrived at the same conclusion: that the non-initiation of force ethic is supremely important. Giving it the same sort of status as a mathematical truth. But we'd better hedge our bets and make sure we have Star Trek style "phasers" / "shields" fitted on our spacecraft.... Steve Whitrow sjw@liberty.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 19:08:05 EDT From: chrism@ksr.com Subject: Liberty is... I saw the following inscription carved in the granite over the entrance of the Worcester county courthouse: "OBEDIENCE TO LAW IS LIBERTY" and thought that people on the list might find it amusing. -chrism ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 18:15:37 -0600 From: twb3@midway.uchicago.edu (Tom Morrow) Subject: Meta: Privatizing Judges >Hmm.. I can't see how you could ever lose by agreeing ahead of time >that judge A will judge the case, unless both sides agree later to >another judge. > >In any case, what could it harm if this list allowed people to >contract around the official list judges? The problem is that list disputes typically (always?) involve issues that impact the list as a whole. Every member suffers from flames--not just the targeted party--because each gets unwanted and unpleasant email. A judge that the flamer and flamee later agree to may or may not have the interests of other list members in mind. The List Adjudicator presumably does. T.O. Morrow -- twb3@midway.uchicago.edu Vice President: ExI -- The Extropy Institute Law & Politics Editor: EXTROPY -- Journal of Transhumanist Thought ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 May 1993 19:29:01 -0500 (EST) From: KMOSTA01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU Subject: Liberty is... "OBEDIENCE TO LAW IS LIBERTY" at the Worcester county courthouse How important it is to make a good first impression. Although I admit that the comparison is exaggerated, recall "Arbeit machts frei". Krzys' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 18:03:48 -0600 From: Robert Owen Subject: extropy Ciy Could you please send me info on Extropy - price, content - a sample back issue would be very nice. Thanks. Dr. Robert B. Owen Owen Research 2525 Arapahoe Ave/Suit3e Suite E4-262 Boulder, CO 80302-6720 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 17:24:34 PDT From: Robin Hanson Subject: Meta: Privatizing Judges I (Robin) asked: >In any case, what could it harm if this list allowed people to >contract around the official list judges? Tom Morrow responded: >The problem is that list disputes typically (always?) involve issues that >impact the list as a whole. Every member suffers from flames--not just the >targeted party--because each gets unwanted and unpleasant email. Ajudge >that the flamer and flamee later agree to may or may not have the interests >of other list members in mind. The List Adjudicator presumably does. Let's remember that opponents of private law have many similar arguments to support the idea that "society" needs to investigate, prosecute, and adjudicate most law. So if we really like this private law idea, shouldn't we bend over backwards to try and unbundle list law whenever possible, and to find ways to look at each list law issue as between only some complaining victim and an accused violator? If a non-flamee can have a legit complaint about a flame, fine. That is still just one complaining victim and one accused. Violation of the list trademark is appropriately an issue between the list owner of that trademark and the accused. If you think there are issues with so many victims, each only hurt a little, that we need something more like class-action suits, then maybe we should try to come up with something like that. But shouldn't we first see how far we can get presuming binary legal issues? Btw, if we can contract around list law, I think that Harry should try to be fair, but should feel free to take his time reaching verdicts, and to not be that thorough in investigating or explaining himself. If you want faster or more thorough service, contract with someone else. Robin Hanson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 19:43:14 -0600 From: twb3@midway.uchicago.edu (Tom Morrow) Subject: Meta: Privatizing Judges >Let's remember that opponents of private law have many similar >arguments to support the idea that "society" needs to investigate, >prosecute, and adjudicate most law. Yes, quite true. I thought of this after I posted and planned to correct myself. That you already did so demonstrates one of the many gains of discussing matters with like-minded folk! >So if we really like this private >law idea, shouldn't we bend over backwards to try and unbundle list >law whenever possible, and to find ways to look at each list law issue >as between only some complaining victim and an accused violator? Absolutely. Someone else has suggested a similar approach, but I remain unsure just how we can distinguish between personal and public harms. I haven't given it much thought, yet, though, and I remain open to suggestions. In fact, I'll take a first cut at the problem right now: the default rule is that the List Administrator decides the case. But the LA can, at the request of both parties, hand the case over to a third party. >Robin Hanson T.O. Morrow -- twb3@midway.uchicago.edu Vice President: ExI -- The Extropy Institute Law & Politics Editor: EXTROPY -- Journal of Transhumanist Thought ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 20:45:50 -0400 From: pavel@PARK.BU.EDU (Paul Cisek) Subject: DAISY: the death of Hal 9000 Elias Israel writes: > >Michal Clive Price mentions an article in SciAm concerning the "death" >of computer neural nets: >> As the network approached death [>90% of connections severed], it >> began to output not gibberish but information it had previously >> learned - its silicon life flashed before it eyes, so to speak. > >I found this little snippet fascinating (I read the original in SciAm >when it appeared) and it seems clear to me that this is very suggestive >evidence for the materialist conception of consciousness. In fact, I I hate to inject a note of skepticism, but these sorts of cutesy analogies are rampant when neural net research is popularized. You have to be careful in drawing such correlations as support for a particular theory of consciousness or cognitive implementation. For example, Bart Kosko in an oft-cited article in Byte magazine about Bidirectional Associative Memory (a simple neural-net), suggests that when the network exhibits incorrect associations it is something like a deja-vu experience. Kosko is no slouch and a major figure in NN research, but this statement is plain nonsense. (`Humans make mistakes, my network makes mistakes ==> my network is a model of humans...') The above quote on the death of neural nets is just the same kind of thing, an NN phenomenon sounds like something somehow related to a biological phenomenon and therefore.... this is how overly ambition claims are made, leading to grave disappointments once the excitement settles and the theory is shown to be blatantly false, leading to yet another paradigm shift in brain science, etc. As someone who works in the field, I wouldn't want it to lose credibility. Neural modeling is one of those fields that (like nanotech), is actually hurt by overzealous interest... but enough of my ranting. (That is not to say that the analogy you draw is completely false, just that the evidence is not really there to justify the claim...) Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 93 21:18:14 -0400 From: pavel@PARK.BU.EDU (Paul Cisek) Subject: POLL: Expertise As you may recall, I am collecting info on the background and expertise of the members of this list. So far the response has been excellent, but I'm still hoping for entries from some key members. Don't be left out! Let me clarify some things I really did not explain well in my previous post. The intended purpose of this survey is to compile a list of names and areas of expertise that other list members can use as a reference. This implies that I want to include names and e-mail addresses (If anyone does not want their name listed please let me know!). It also implies that what I'm looking for is a short one-or-two line summary of your areas of _professional_ expertise (areas in which you feel comfortable answering technical questions). For example, don't list nanotechnology unless you are/will-be actively contributing to its development or study/studied a related enabling technology. I realize that this makes for boring descriptions, and that it neglects interesting aspects of the personalities here, but it's necessary if this is to work. For the most part, the responses I've gotten were just right. Here's a sample: Paul Cisek - PhD candidate (Cognitive & Neural Systems) Computer science, neural networks, neuroscience Pretty dry, and it leaves out most of my personality, but so it goes... Anyway, I hope to post the results soon. Thanks, Paul ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 21:22:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Harry Shapiro Subject: Meta: Judement(s) Hi, I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but I have read a number of them and would like to make an initial reaction. 1) My judgments are not final. Their is a list adjudicator and she has over-turned by decisions in the past. (Carol has decided to appeal). 2) This list as PPL is an experiment and I don't think we have it right; in my most recent judgment I went so far as to say it failed. We must create a code and "break it," then rewrite it, and break it, and so forth until we get something that works. 3) Re: #2, Please continue this thread about our PPL code. I must admit I was hoping my judgment would bring more focus to this issue. 4) A number of people have asked, why a judgment against Ms. Moore and not against Mr. Singh? The answer is simple, no one brought him up on charges. I will not be the "DA" and the Judge. 4a) Perry is not the list "DA." Perry doesn't have an official voice in running the list and doesn't speak for ExI. Anyone can bring charges; If this experiment is to work I will need more and more of you to bring charges (and I will make judgments). The judgments will be both good and bad and some will be appealed and some will be over turned. That is how it should be. 5) In the past I have asked for list members opinions about on-going cases and have never or rarely got a reply. Please let me know your feelings prior to my judgments. 6) Some have asked about penalties. I can issue warnings. I can stop a person from posting for any period of time and I can stop a person for reading for any period of time. Just because someone has used up all their warnings does not mean they will then be thrown off the list. (for example, they might lose posting right for a few days.) 7) Please don't attack me. Please let's discuss changes to the code and to the PPL. -- Harry Shapiro habs@panix.com List Administrator of the Extropy Institute Mailing List Private Communication for the Extropian Community since 1991 ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0242 ****************************************