From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Wed Jun 2 07:33:26 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA25042; Wed, 2 Jun 93 07:33:24 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA00174; Wed, 2 Jun 93 07:33:20 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Wed, 2 Jun 93 10:28:37 -0400 Message-Id: <9306021428.AA23726@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ExI-Daily@gnu.ai.mit.edu Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 10:28:19 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <9306021428.AA23719@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu> X-Original-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu From: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Extropians Digest V93 #0294 X-Extropian-Date: Remailed on June 2, 373 P.N.O. [14:28:36 UTC] Reply-To: Extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: OR Extropians Digest Wed, 2 Jun 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0294 Today's Topics: Contrapositive Crows [1 msgs] Cool concept... [1 msgs] DIET: Metabolism Modifiers? [1 msgs] ECON/SPACE: Sell the Universe Whole [3 msgs] META: Appropriate Subject Lines [1 msgs] NANO: Magic Dust with a Vengeance! [1 msgs] Neologism(?): extroprenuer [1 msgs] POLY: HSG 100, parts 1-7 repost, all in one... [1 msgs] SPACE: Fermi paradox, etc. -- probably dumb question [4 msgs] Verifying Privacy as an Upload/AI? [3 msgs] What's VPL [2 msgs] hello.. [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: 50656 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 15:44:54 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: What's VPL VPL was the company Jaron Lanier was with (started?) while he was becoming a virtual-reality celebrity. I think the initials stand for the Visual Programming Language that was their first project. -fnerd ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 18:23:27 EDT From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) Subject: Verifying Privacy as an Upload/AI? Just want to reinforce that my question is not how can an AI or upload BE secure, but how can they KNOW that they are secure. That is, given that you SEEM to be inside a secure system, how can you know that you are not inside a simulation that actually has a trap door? -fnerd ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1993 18:43:29 -0400 From: Marc Horowitz Subject: Verifying Privacy as an Upload/AI? >> Since you stipulate human being copying and torturing (sounds like >> tampering to me), I think this is not ultimate privacy. >> When you call them, they can quiz you on your mental and physical health >> to determine whether they should give you the keys...thus limiting the >> ability of a torturer. Oh, sure. "Hi, Paul? This is Marc. I need your piece of my private key. How am I? Just fine. But if you don't give me the password, the guy holding the phone has some very unpleasant looking surgical equipment and there isn't an anaesthesiologist in sight, so I won't be fine for long. Just read it out loud, someone will key it in." Need I say more? Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1993 19:01:05 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: SPACE: Fermi paradox, etc. -- probably dumb question X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission Edward J OConnell says: > I disagree. I dislike the reasoning of the anthropic cosmological > principal intensly. Reading it actually made me feel a bit queasy. I dislike the fact that there is a good chance I might die somewhere where Alcor can't get to me. Too bad for me that the universe doesn't care about me too much. Evolutionary arguments pretty much guarantee that you won't have trillions of individuals from millions of cultures all successfully limiting their activity. If only one defected and built Von Neuman machines, which to usin another century will practically be at the level of complexity of grade school projects, the universe would be full of the bloody things. > It felt > a little religious to me. Precontact civilizations may be preserved for > reasons of diversity. It is possible that the universe is not run in an > anarchocapitalist fashion, no? Just as we cannot run a successful war on drugs, I seriously doubt that millions of advanced civilizations each with trillions of members could keep EVERY LAST BEING from building Von Neuman machines. On this basis, I'd say your argument seems hopelessly naive about the complexity of the control problem you are proposing. > Even given anarchocapitalist social structure, I can imagine reasons to > keep us in the dark. Perhaps precontact civilizations occasionally come up > with radically new ways of doing things, provided they're not swamped by > an older and more developed galactic culture. I think you have a fundamental and gaping flaw in your reasoning -- you see entire species as if they were monolithic entities. Look around you. Do you think the human race could be controlled sufficiently to keep all of us from ever contacting other civilizations if each and every one of us personally had the power associated with an advanced nanotechnology? Do you think all humans have a single set of common goals? If humans have billions of viewpoints and different goals, imagine the unlikelyhood that all other species would be different and that all of their members would all share a single viewpoint! Perry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 14:37:52 PDT From: ghsvax!hal@uunet.UU.NET (Hal Finney) Subject: NANO: Magic Dust with a Vengeance! I picked up the book/disk "Nanotechnology Playhouse" based on the review here. I was a little disappointed with the disk, as the animations weren't very clear and there were only a half-dozen or so. I would have preferred something more interactive, too. Still, it was good for a few minutes of entertainment. The book is a real gee-whiz treasure. We've had some people write skeptically here of the more utopian predictions of nanotech abundance. Here is the lead-in to chapter 2, "The Potential of Nanotechnology", a little story that should drive the skeptics crazy: The bulldozer operator shifted gears and brought her vehicle to a halt. Directly in front of her sat a hill of dirt blocking the path of the new highway. It must have been left there by the explosives crew who had cleared this area the week before, she thought. She wiped her forehead with a handkerchief and tried to figure out what to do next. "Looks like nanofood to me," said a nearby man in a hardhat. "You think so?" the bulldozer operator asked. "Have the chemical guys run an assay on that stuff yet?" "Yeah," said the man in the hardhat. "It's got all the right atoms in it to build nanostuff. All we need to do is bring in one of those portable molecular manufacturer trucks and shovel the dirt in." As if on cue, a large vehicle pulled up on the other side of the mound of dirt. The front of the vehicle resembled the cab of a truck, but the rest of it looked more like a small factory. The truck driver hopped out and signaled to the bulldozer operator. "Looks like the nanotech guys are here already," the bulldozer operator said to the man in the hardhat. "Let's get to work!" She drove the bulldozer straight into the hill of dirt, pushing a large mound of it toward an open door in the side of the factory-like vehicle. An automatic conveyor built into the vehicle then picked up the dirt and lifted it inside. "So what are you gonna make this time?" the bulldozer operator asked. "Even after you've made the road surface, there's gonna be a lot of nanofood left to play with!" "Whatever you need," the truck driver shrugged and said. "Well," the man in the hardhat said, "I promised my wife I'd bring home some groceries." "And I could use some new golf clubs," the bulldozer operator said. "Coming right up," the truck driver said. He punched some buttons set into a panel on the side of the vehicle. A moment later, a brown bag filled with groceries slid out of an opening in the vehicle's rear, along with a golf bag filled with clubs. "You must want something else," the truck driver said. The man in the hardhat and the bulldozer operator paused for a moment to think. "Hurry up!" snapped the truck driver. "At this rate, it'll take us all day to get rid of this dirt!" "Okay, okay!" the bulldozer operator said in a peevish voice. "But I still haven't had a chance to use all that stuff you made for us last week!"... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 93 16:02:10 -0700 From: davisd@pierce.ee.washington.edu Subject: ECON/SPACE: Sell the Universe Whole From: "Perry E. Metzger" Pardon... So, the UN has auctioned everything off. Ten years later, I go to the moon with my cronies and ignore them on the basis that they have no way to enforce their claims. What happens now? If you and your cronies stay on the moon, and if you have enough firepower to hold off anyone that comes by, and if you can maintain that advantage for a hundred years, then you will be the owners of that property. If you go back to earth, they will try to catch you. If you don't have enough firepower, they overrun you. If you don't have independant supplies, they starve you out. If you don't maintain those conditions for the next hundred years, as the moon is more and more domesticated, they will eventually give you the boot in favor of the "real" owner. I doubt that you could successfully hold a piece of the moon. This is not homesteading in the wild west. You will likely be very dependant on the earth for supplies. If you annoy the UN, they will make it a point to know about your comings and goings, if nothing else, just to show that they are in charge. They will know when you fly, they will know who supplies you, and they will retaliate. Governments will go along. In short, your premise that they will have no way to enforce their claim is very unlikely. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1993 19:28:19 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: ECON/SPACE: Sell the Universe Whole X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission davisd@pierce.ee.washington.edu says: > > From: "Perry E. Metzger" > > Pardon... > > So, the UN has auctioned everything off. Ten years later, I go to the > moon with my cronies and ignore them on the basis that they have no > way to enforce their claims. What happens now? > > If you and your cronies stay on the moon, and if you have enough > firepower to hold off anyone that comes by, and if you can maintain > that advantage for a hundred years, then you will be the owners > of that property. > > If you go back to earth, they will try to catch you. > > If you don't have enough firepower, they overrun you. > > If you don't have independant supplies, they starve you out. > > If you don't maintain those conditions for the next hundred years, > as the moon is more and more domesticated, they will eventually > give you the boot in favor of the "real" owner. > > I doubt that you could successfully hold a piece of the moon. This > is not homesteading in the wild west. You will likely be very dependant > on the earth for supplies. If you annoy the UN, they will make it > a point to know about your comings and goings, if nothing else, > just to show that they are in charge. They will know when you > fly, they will know who supplies you, and they will retaliate. > Governments will go along. > > In short, your premise that they will have no way to enforce their > claim is very unlikely. Pardon, but this is second or third order bullshit shooting. You are already making assumptions about what people might hold the moon with and how dependant they might be on supplies and how anxious the UN might be to nuke them and we haven't even seen the UN even discuss an auction let alone see anyone develop viable space transport. I'll stand by my comment that the people with the firepower to hold whatever they take will ultimately hold on to space resources, and we'll see in thirty or fifty years if I'm right or not. .pm ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 19:53:37 -0400 From: bakunin@gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: hello.. do me the favor of putting me on your mailing list thanks michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 93 17:02:39 -0700 From: davisd@pierce.ee.washington.edu Subject: ECON/SPACE: Sell the Universe Whole From: "Perry E. Metzger" Pardon, but this is second or third order bullshit shooting. How genteel. I'll stand by my comment that the people with the firepower to hold whatever they take will ultimately hold on to space resources, and we'll see in thirty or fifty years if I'm right or not. What bold prophecy! Lets take a look at this prediction, hmmm? If some people hold what they took, they obviously had enough power to do so. If others couldn't hold what they took, they obviously did not have enough power. Nothing like going out on a limb with one's predictions. Buy Buy -- Dan Davis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 8:15:36 MDT From: bangell@cs.utah.edu (bob angell) Subject: META: Appropriate Subject Lines Everyone: It would be downright nice (polite) to name appropriate Subject: lines with your email on this list. I was offline this weekend and had to wade through several hundred messages, 1/2 to 3/4 were not about the original thread. Thanks for your cooperation. -Bob- -- Bob Angell | Data Integration (multi-platform) Principal | AWK, C/C++, RDBMS langs, Paradox Management Systems Engineering | Health Systems Engineering Applied Information & Management Systems | Database design/development 1238 Fenway Avenue - SLC, UT 84102-3212 | Simulation/Modeling/Neural Nets bangell@cs.utah.edu; Voice: 801-583-8544 | Freelance writer, major publications IBMLINK:DEV4534, TEAMOS/2 | OS/2 2.x Application Developer [Disclaimer: I don't speak for IBM or the University of Utah!] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 17:20:06 PDT From: peb@PROCASE.COM Subject: Verifying Privacy as an Upload/AI? >From marc@GZA.COM Tue Jun 1 15:44:15 1993 >But if you don't give me the password, the guy >holding the phone has some very unpleasant looking surgical equipment Alarm systems use duress codes for this that trigger a silent alarm when the password is entered. I'm not sure the proposed system here (a capability system) could have an extra channel that the bad guys don't know about. Using a hierarchy of escrow agents would be interesting--then by calling me up for part of the key would require me to get back to you after I called up the person at the next level. (Note that a hierarchy is a special case of a general graph, so the webs of trust idea is important here (could provide some redundancy).) Now, back to Steve's actual question, >From: fnerd@smds.com (FutureNerd Steve Witham) >given that you SEEM to be inside a secure system, how can you know >that you are not inside a simulation Ultimately, there is no proof you are not currently a simulation on a big computer. Why is time travel is not possible? It's too expensive on the current platform. (E.g, if SimEarth inhabitants could time travel, you would have a hard time keeping track of what they did and your machine would slow down considerably). On an upload, how many people can be in the same room? Can you make arbitrary video phone calls? Anything that stretches the compute resources could potentially make the bad guys impatient and blow their trojan horse universe. Paul E. Baclace peb@procase.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1993 18:30:59 -0600 (MDT) From: rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter) Subject: POLY: HSG 100, parts 1-7 repost, all in one... Here are all 7 parts to what I have titled HSG 100, an introductory "course" of sorts on my theory of a proposed brain "mechanism" which appears to be the "root" of what is generally referred to as the creative process. The following is copyrighted, but can be freely quoted within the Extropian mail list. I request that you ask for permission before it can quoted or publish elsewhere. HSG 100 - Part 1 It all started (well sort of started) when I turned 30, some eight years ago. I was tired of feeling different all the time (I had felt different all my life), tired of not fitting in, so I decided to figure out what was going. I first tried (re)exploring some past interests; comparative religion, UFOs, psychic phenomena; all with no joy. Turned to the study of the New Age; no solid answers, but found a certain commonality in all that and myself; a -holistic- approach to explaining, and describing the things around us. But, still, not -the- answer. Stumbled across a book on what is called the Imposter Phenomenon, a theory that sought to explain a (presumed) psychological condition wherein people, even though there were intelligent and successful, still felt a certain amount of failure; they felt like they were faking it all. But one thing puzzled the person who proposed all of this; there was a marked lack of any common environment among the IP people. It then struck me (2 in the morning, about 2 years into my study) that the commonality between these people (and myself) was some kind of common brain structure; a specific brain mechanism shared by these people. The search was on to figure out what this mechanism was, and what it really did, and how it worked... HSG 100 - Part 2 So, now I had a theorized brain physiology, in common to about 5% of the general population, if the IP work and numbers were to be believed. Time to study more on the other things. First, analyze what the true behavior pattern was, as it wasn't totally about feeling like an imposter; I had felt that way at times, but wasn't faking it; I was simply good at a lot of things. It quickly became evident, that what was going on was the ability to analyze lots of things at the same time; a multidisciplinary approach to knowledge acquisition and analysis; the commonality I had found with the New Age movements, a -holistic- approach. Ah, a holistic brain structure! Back to the books, and whole brain theory, and too much garbage about mental exercises; it had to be something more -natural- than that; something simpler. Perhaps, a small structure; frontal lobe(?); corpus collossum(?); stem(?); could be a different kind of synapse; and not enough had been done in this area. But started seeing some common things between what I was looking at, and schizophrenia! And autism! A common mechanism? Left the mechanism to be analyzed later, as it wasn't -that- important right now to know -how- it worked, but more important to figure out what -it- meant. The work that had been done on schizophrenia and autism -would- come in handy, when it came to other things, later on... Instead, I turned to psychology, and behaviorism... HSG 100 - Part 3 I started by examining my own behavior, my own psychology. After that I started to find people of like mind, and through discussion with them, started finding the common points of what I was trying to figure out. Books, the printed word, TV, movies; ah, forms of data, informations sources... Jack/Jill of all trades; interested in all subjects... Conflictive relationships; conflict in self motivation, self discipline. The brain mechanism seem to work on a holistic brain level, which in turn had an effect on the learning patterns, the thought patterns, the way that I (and these others) processed information; the analysis of things not in a linear manner A, then B, then C... but as whole, ABCDEF... In a gestalt (no, a Gestalt(!)) manner. The mechanism has a name at last. But, how come there was so much conflict in these people, that had (seemingly) everything going for them, at least as far as the brain was concerned? Gestalt psychology was getting defined; just as a left handed person growing up in a right handed world, has the daily conflict of trying to make do with right handed tools, etc. and in return resenting this right handed world, and forming a particular kind of psychology and behavior in direct response to this conflict, so the Gestalt growing up in a Linear world (without the benefit of a Gestalt (versus Linear) sense of self discipline) would have continual conflict. And from this conflict, would be the psychology (and end behavior patterns) of someone faced with these conflicts. Relationships would fail; jobs would get boring; hobbies would start, then end, when the Gestalt had mastered the basics of it. The process of internalizing everything (through the importance of everything external being more important than the self) lead to self doubts, self blame, escape into fantasy when the conflict was too much. What to do about this, and then there was gestalt physiology... HSG 100 - Part 4 Gestalt physiology was getting easier to understand; the brain mechanism, the Gestalt Mechanism (GM) was brain based, with the exact structured unknown; must still be possible to make a model for it. Whatever it was, it helped interconnect all the portions of the brain together, on a logical (if not physical) level. Neural synapses are dopamine driven; it follows the GM is as well. There is a connection between dopamine levels and schizophrenia, as well as autism. A connection to Gestalt? More on this later. Dopamine production is aided by taking B complex vitamins, which in turn is aided by vitamin C; tryptophan might play a role too. The Gestalt mechanism seemed to be in place in about 5-6 percent of the general population (based on IP figures); it also appears to be a multi-co-recessive genetic structure ie more than one recessive genes working together; not the 1 in 4 number of what we see in traditional recessive structures, but (what I realized very recently) a 1 in 16 (1/4 X 1/4) or 6.25 percent appearance. The GM needed larger than average amounts of dopamine to function; but the unrealized, or non-self-actualized Gestalt, without the proper self discipline, would get in all sorts of self destructive behavior patterns. The undisciplined Gestalt would obsess on an idea (internalizing) and burn out their dopamine reserves; they would try to compensate by (for instance) going on a sugar jag; that just propped up the production of dopamine, but would follow by a crash; of emotions, and productivity. All the classic signs of sine wave behavior. The Gestalt might show signs of other recessive physiology eg double jointness, blue eye/brown hair combos, etc. They will be ambidextrous to a certain degree; possibly secondary sex features. How -does- G physiology affect G behavior? HSG 100 - Part 5 How physiology modifies behavior... Gestalt thrives on information accumulation; the Gestalt Mechanism (and the dopamine production it commands) demands information to process; in turn Gestalt reads all they can get. But, the internalization process of data gathering is in direct conflict with the externalization process of most of the people surrounding G, the Linears. What appears to be a contradiction at first, clears up a little; G internalizes everything, which makes them -external- motivated; all that is not of the self is interesting or important; L externalizes everything, because the self is the most important thing to Linears which makes the external the source of all bad. To the Linear, the universe orbits them; they can do no wrong. To the Gestalt, the universe incorporates themselves; all wrong is their doing. Conflict between these fundamentally different ways of doing things, leads to the majority of problems that Gestalt have; the dread GLC or Gestalt-Linear Conflict. This leads in turn (at times) poor self image, poor self esteem. Depression, escape into fantasy, suicidal tendencies, binge substance abuse (not addiction; I predict that Gestalt -can't- be addicted) which can lead to a `numbing' of the Gestalt Mechanism, which has the effect of temporarily (and just on the conscious level) making the Gestalt feel Linear; once this happens the conflict level lessens (again, on just the conscious level) when the substance starts to wear off, conflict is reintroduced, and the binge is on again. Gestalt usually are withdrawn, morbid, socially maladjusted; most G can be classified one of two ways; rationalized (I am psychic, I am stupid, I am weird, I am the smartest person around, I am better than the rest) or sublimated (leave me alone, I am worthless, nothing wrong or different or special about me, I give up). There are self-actualized Gestalt (this does -not- mean they are self aware of being Gestalt) and as such can be well adjusted (from an external observer) in that they are sociable, know how to small talk, succeed in the corporate world (well sort of), etc. Behavior leads to psychology, upsides to being Gestalt... HSG 100 - Part 6 Behavior begats psychology (ie learned behavior)... In this context, I refer to a person's `psychology', the behavior pattern that has become integrated to that person. Note that the process of integration, does not mean it can't be `unintegrated', just that it becomes more difficult. I theorize that (especially within the Gestalt mind/brain) neural pathways are formed, with the integration of new ideas or concepts. Conflict is also able to cause a change in brain structure; ie the process of learning, is actually a process of changing the wiring of the brain structure. For the Gestalt, day to day conflict starts to make such changes. Changes include sublimation, rationalization, withdrawal, etc. On the upside, Gestalt is highly adaptable, performs well under pressure, in fact sometimes has a behavior where they wait until the last minute to do things, because they -can- for one thing, but also that gives them that all-so-important dopamine rush. There is a possibility the only people able to experience a true creative process (ingenuity, inventiveness, innovativeness) are Gestalt; it appears the most fundamental changes that occurred to society have Gestalt roots. The Gestalt's ability to look at the `big picture' also enables G to look at seemingly unrelated facts and `gestalt' them together. Gestalt seems to be disease resistant; but light sensitive; myopia is also associated with G; joint pain is also predictable. G is able to have high levels of concentration; can block pain. A model can be made which explains the relation of G to autism and schizophrenia; there is the physiological connection of dopamine; perhaps in schizophrenia, the Gestalt Mechanism is formed in a `short circuit' pattern ie the connections are not as stabile as they are in G; in autism, perhaps the GM forms (or activates) earlier than the rest of the brain can `handle' well; the end result is like a fuse blowing. There is a third kind of Gestalt Mechanism variant that I have observed; this exists in Whitley Streiber (Communion, et al) and John Lilly; the commonality of their experiences leads me to believe there some variation of schizophrenia in both. To help classify this all: GM' (Gestalt Mechanism Prime), GMs (Schizophrenia; be aware that most schizophrenia can be split into two main variants; congenitally formed (ie since birth) and adolescent activated), GMa (Autism), and GM? (Streiber/Lilly Syndrome); when I speak of Gestalt, or Homo Sapien Gestalt (HSG), I am (for the most part) speaking of GM' people. Where from here? HSG 100 - Part 7 The future of Gestalt... Gestalt, once actualized, can accomplish anything they please; there is no restriction that Gestalt can't remove. The main thing holding Gestalt back is Gestalt-Linear Conflict (GLC). It is GLC that creates the conflict built walls that sublimate G; it is GLC, that causes the internal conflict that leads to the problems that Gestalt encounter; that eventually hold Gestalt back. New ideas go through a process; accepting the concept (of being G); understanding (what G is); incorporating these concepts (of being G). Once Gestalt starts to reject the Linear; accepts being Gestalt, then they can `unlearn' (actually `re-learn' or learn anew) the false (to themselves) Linear discipline, and can learn Gestalt (or what is true to them) discipline. Gestalt has to be careful; they can readily rationalize the differences between Linear and Gestalt as some kind of superiority, which it is not; it is a difference. Granted, a difference which makes Gestalt better suited to handle the complex data structure that exists in today's society, but not necessarily better. It is only in times of complex communications that Gestalt is at their best; times like we live in today. End of HSG 100. Copyright 1993 - Ronald L. Carter - All Rights Reserved - CSCI`93 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jun 93 18:59:01 EDT From: clayb@cellar.org Subject: Neologism(?): extroprenuer twb3@midway.uchicago.edu (Tom Morrow) writes: > >extropian entreprenuer = extroprenuer > > > >Don't know if it's original or not... > > >Clay > > I first saw this in one of Doug Platt's posts, and plausibly claims to have > coined it. Yep, I'll bet it was Doug. I probably picked it up at one of Doug's gatherings and then my overactive ego, or underactive memory, kicked in. Cheers Clay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 07:29:59 PDT From: jackr@pk.com (Jack Riggen) Subject: Cool concept... Hail that indomitable extropian attitude! Greetings. I am a 'net newcomer, and I read of your transhumanist endeavours in WIRED May/June issue. I find your perspective intriguing, and I'm inter- ested in receiving a sample copy of your 'zine. At the very least, I'd like to find out if you've got a newsgroup and possibly join in. If you know of any book stores in the Bay Area that carry your mag, I'd like to get the names. Thanx, jackr@pk.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jun 93 23:38:06 CDT From: ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu Subject: Contrapositive Crows Robin offers an ingenious argument by I.J. Good against my claim that a black crow is evidence that all crows are black. I have two problems with it. 1. Good is assuming that "a black crow" is shorthand for "the fact that the first bird I see is a black crow." If we take "a black crow" to mean "the fact that the first crow I see is black" or even "the fact that one of the crows I see is black (and none yet has been white)" his argument vanishes. 2. Taken that way, however, we still have a problem for my argument, although not for its first proposition (that a black crow is evidence that all crows are black). I now must take "a sheet of white paper" to mean "the fact that the first sheet of paper I see is white." One can redo Good's assumption so that the world with all black crows also has only blue paper in it, in which case a sheet of white paper becomes evidence against the proposition that all crows are black. My response to this is that one piece of paper may be more than one piece of evidence. In this particular case, the sheet of white paper is a not black thing that is not a crow, and as such is direct evidence that all crows are black (as per my earlier argument). It is also a sheet of paper that is not blue, which is conclusive evidence that not all sheets of paper are blue, which (given my assumption that I know the world where all crows are black is also a world where all paper is blue) is indirect (but conclusive) proof that some crows are not black. Note that, if one is not willing to take some such position, Good's argument implies that all general statements about evidence (as opposed to proof) are false. David Friedman University of Chicago Law School ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1993 00:17:27 -0400 From: Alexander Chislenko Subject: SPACE: Fermi paradox, etc. -- probably dumb question I would expect any developing intelligence, if even it was born in a recognizable [for humans] form (a big IF), to rapidly evolve out of our observation space - e.g., upload into vacuum microstructure, create alternative universes with topologies more suitable for carrying advanced intelligence than our poor 3-D, develop features that lie far beyond our concepts of complexity/intelligence/ethics and cannot be adequately projected onto the human consciousness, etc. Nanotech is one of the next natural steps in technological development of the near future, but growth can go far beyond it - even according to our current understanding of the Universe. Most of the human population are already unable to recognize an extropian even when they talk to one - the concepts are too hard to grasp :( ; given some morphic/uploading freedoms, we'd make our bodies unobservable for them too. So probably would any other evolving intelligence. So, they either self-destruct, or quickly evolve out of observation. If we are lucky, we may catch them in a very short period of time between their development of interstellar travel and uploads/?/?. Suppose this period is a century long; then we are looking for civilizations living near one of the neighboring stars [and falling into this very narrow period of their history]. Chances? - Negligible. It is also possible that any recognizable type of intelligence may develop uploading *before* serious interstellar travel - this gives us no chance at all... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Alexander Chislenko | sasha@cs.umb.edu | Cambridge, MA | (617) 864-3382 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All our concepts are irrelevant --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 7:38:05 CDT From: capntaz@dudemar.b24a.ingr.com (Heath G. Goebel) Subject: What's VPL There is an article in the May/June issue of _Wired_ (the Cypherpunks issue) on Jaron Lanier and VPL. -- Heath G. Goebel, ------------------------------ Date: Tuesday, 1 June 1993 20:43:28 PST8 From: "James A. Donald" Subject: SPACE: Fermi paradox, etc. -- probably dumb question In <9306011923.AA11671@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, pmetzger@lehman.com (Perry E. Metzger) wrote: > > > "James A. Donald" says: > > Price lists various explanations for the Fermi paradox. He misses out one > > important possibility > > > > The possibility that I would consider the second most likely possibility is > > that as life forms evolve, they become more complex, more fragile - more > > easily destroyed, and also more capable of destruction. Consequently > > population density becomes lower and lower, and life spans become longer > > and longer. > > Evidence for your contention, please, as on the surface it seems > wholely absurd. Given nanotechnology and von Neuman machines, one > would expect the manifestations of complex life to become ubiquitous > very very fast. Also the capability to destroy other manifestations of complex life will expand very very fast. Humans are noticeably easier to kill than simpler animals - for example lizards can survive damage that would certainly kill a human, etcetera. Humans demand more personal space the other apes, apes demand more personal space that mice or bats, most cold blooded creatures do not seem to have a concept of personal space at all in the sense that higher animals do. It is therefore reasonable to expect that creatures that are several hundred million years evolved ahead of us - as far ahead of us as we are ahead of the slimy things that crawled under the Precambrian rocks - would have extremely high demands for personal space. Just as we surround ourselves with gardens that superficially approximate and imitate a natural environment, so they might prefer to dwell in a relatively unspoiled planetary system, and might get a bit tetchy if crowded. more than one individual per planetary system. I expect that the consequences of highly advanced beings getting a bit tetchy would be quite visible across intergalactic distances. One interesting anomaly about our galaxy is that there seem to be a lot more neutron stars than can be explained by the current rate of supernova explosions. Could it be that from time to time there are a *lot* of supernova explosions. > (By the way, Humans are among the least fragile creatures on the > planet. We outperform the bulk of creatures in many PHYSICAL respects Ability to endure blows is certainly not one of them. Human bones are markedly more fragile than those of any similar animal. Humans have more endurance and rough country capability than most other animals, but most other animals can beat a human in the short dash. That is not toughness, that is specialization. We can sweat better than most animals, and are hairless so we can lose heat a lot faster when we need to. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves and our James A. Donald | property, because of the kind of animals that we | are. True law derives from this right, not from jamesdon@infoserv.com | the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 09:24:20 EDT From: eisrael@suneast.East.Sun.COM (Elias Israel - SunSelect Engineering) Subject: DIET: Metabolism Modifiers? Just a quick question that occurred to me a little while ago: Has anyone heard of dietary supplements that modify your fat metabolism? I should think that someone might be looking into ways of enhancing lipolysis and/or retarding lipogenesis. Any pointers? Elias Israel eisrael@east.sun.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jun 93 8:46:42 CDT From: derek@cs.wisc.edu (Derek Zahn) Subject: SPACE: Fermi paradox, etc. -- probably dumb question Alex's proposed solution to the Fermi paradox is interesting: Something Much Better Awaits. Still, it's not clear to me that it quite gets around the von Neumann Replicator problem; as has been pointed out, all it takes is one of those being created in between nanotech mature enough to build one and a Singularity such as Alex's "upload into vacuum microstructure" or "creation of alternate universes"... or whatever, even if the Something Much Better is completely compelling and absorbs everybody. One possibility might be that we're missing something fundamental that we probably should have found already; perhaps civilizations blind like us merely require nanocomputers to help them discover it; leading to "it" before general robust nanotechnology (but just barely, so it's not quite a credible explanation). Maybe there's a certain level of "computation density" that causes severe physical effects: black hole or some kind of universal immune response... civilizations ramping up toward general nanotech could be wiped out before they reach it. Is there a credible way to deny the possibility of von Neumann Replicators? We don't know much about how difficult self- replication actually is... sure, cells do it -- but does that imply that MUCH better systems have to be possible? Mmph. Not necessary. A good case could be made that human beings + tools ~= vNR without a whole lot of breakthroughs. Interesting area of study... no matter what, it seems like something absurd must be true! I suppose the Master Species theory has been put forward already -- that one "local" civilization has already developed and prevents others from spitting out vNR's or expanding too far. If that civilization linked into one "individual" a la Vinge's Singularity, it's not too hard to imagine that they might remain unrevealed to us. Why haven't they undertaken galaxy-scale engineering? I don't know. derek actually, they have... you don't suppose this galaxy is a natural phenomenon, do you??? von Neumann Replicator seems > alternative universes with topologies more suitable for carrying advanced > intelligence than our poor 3-D, develop features that lie far beyond > our concepts of complexity/intelligence/ethics and cannot be > adequately projected onto the human consciousness, etc. > > Nanotech is one of the next natural steps in technological development > of the near future, but growth can go far beyond it - even according to > our current understanding of the Universe. > > Most of the human population are already unable to recognize an extropian > even when they talk to one - the concepts are too hard to grasp :( ; > given some morphic/uploading freedoms, we'd make our bodies unobservable > for them too. > So probably would any other evolving intelligence. > > So, they either self-destruct, or quickly evolve out of observation. > If we are lucky, we may catch them in a very short period of time between > their development of interstellar travel and uploads/?/?. > Suppose this period is a century long; then we are looking for civilizations > living near one of the neighboring stars [and falling into this very narrow > period of their history]. Chances? - Negligible. > It is also possible that any recognizable type of intelligence may > develop uploading *before* serious interstellar travel - this gives us > no chance at all... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | Alexander Chislenko | sasha@cs.umb.edu | Cambridge, MA | (617) 864-3382 | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > All our concepts are irrelevant > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0294 ****************************************