Extropians Digest Tue, 22 Jun 93 Volume 93 : Issue 0348 Today's Topics: A:META: Self-Rating System [1 msgs] A:SOC: Wolf Psychology lst post [1 msgs] AIT VirtSem: Other Topics [1 msgs] AIT VirtSem: Random Numbers [1 msgs] AIT VirtSem: Reading List, Version 1.0 [1 msgs] B:DIET: Ideas for Overweight [1 msgs] B:MEETING OF HOUSTON EXTROPIANS [1 msgs] B:SOC: Wolf Psychology 5th post [1 msgs] BOOKS: Sci-fi [2 msgs] C:FLYING YOGIS [anything pro or con on that [1 msgs] C:META: Self-Rating System [message about how [1 msgs] C:SOC: Wolf Psychology [explains why poster 5 an [1 msgs] C:SOC: Wolf Psychology [joke about wolf [1 msgs] CHAT: I loved 2001. Very transhumanist movie. [1 msgs] EVOLUTION/DIET: What proto-hominids ate [3 msgs] Extropian Music? Extropian Fiction? [1 msgs] Let's split sci.crypt and Re: Random numbers? [1 msgs] META: Self-Rating System [1 msgs] SOC/CHAT: Appearances and Multiple Worlds [6 msgs] SOC: All Critical Mass Theories Bogus? [5 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: 52022 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 13:08:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: SOC: All Critical Mass Theories Bogus? I've read other debunkings of 100th Monkey observations, however, I see that many people, including some libertarians, still use verious of some sort of social critical mass theory that holds that when a certain percentage of people hold an idea, most people will adopt it. Which, if any, of these theories are credible? (-: cmoore@cap.gwu.edu :-) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 10:40:16 PDT From: "Mark W. McFadden" Subject: SOC/CHAT: Appearances and Multiple Worlds On Tue, 22 Jun 93 9:37:19 PDT, Timothy C. May wrote: >Sort of a like listening to a Russian roulette survivor explaining how >it isn't really as dangerous as everyone says it is. > >-Tim > Well, 5 out of 6 Russian Roulette players agree that it's very safe. And 9 out of 10 decimation veterans say it isn't anything to worry about. ______________________________________________________________________ | Mark W. McFadden | Been there.....done that. mwm@wwtc.timeplex.com | | ___________________________________|__________________________________ I wasted time and company money writing this. I hope your list software doesn't discard it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 13:09:04 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: SOC: All Critical Mass Theories Bogus? In <9306221710.AA24184@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Carol Moore writes: |> I've read other debunkings of 100th Monkey observations, |> however, I see that many people, including some libertarians, |> still use verious of some sort of social critical mass |> theory that holds that when a certain percentage of |> people hold an idea, most people will adopt it. |> |> Which, if any, of these theories are credible? We can at least see mechanisms for the rapid transfer of concepts among humans (why, I type at one now! Fancy that) as opposed to among 100 monkeys. A trivial case of the theory certainly holds: when 51% of people hold an idea, then most people will have adopted it. I don't think you could state specific numeric thresholds that would hold across different cultures and in respect to different kinds of ideas. It's intuitively clear that you need a threshold value of _visibility_ for an idea (or meme, in extro-speak) to appear _respectable_ to a person learning of it for the first time. Visibility can come from a lot of different people approving the meme, or from a few prominent ones. Memes have very different emotients ("emotional quotients"), also, that is, some are more lightly held and easily discarded than others; also, it costs more to accept a new meme if it contradicts previous memes (weighted by emotient), so its perceived value must be high in this case. While there may be ways to research this stuff without drowning in soft-science claptrap, I'm at a loss to describe any of them. The formulation seems meaningful to libertarians because we feel the effects of the catch-22: you can't get people to accept your ideas because not enough people have accepted them. But until proven otherwise, I think critical mass is necessary but not sufficient for majority acceptance. Going one way, it sounds tautological, and going the other way, probably wrong. ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 11:18:37 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: SOC/CHAT: Appearances and Multiple Worlds >Lefty writes: > >> Just to provide an anecdotal data point, I have personally walked through >> Central Park well after midnight, alone, on a number of occasions. In the >> words of a Kurt Vonnegut character who embarked on a similar adventure, >> "There was nobody there. Just me, and fear, and nobody." > >Ah, but is this surprising? After all, you are still here to tell us >about this, which means we are not in the realities in which you were >mugged and killed. > >Sort of a like listening to a Russian roulette survivor explaining how >it isn't really as dangerous as everyone says it is. Hey, I _said_ it was anecdotal. Actually, this ties in with a theory I've had for a while. I suggest that we're _already_ immortal, that one's consciousness will _never_ end up on a time line in which one dies. This would conceivably explain several narrow escapes I've had. -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 11:13:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott C DeLancey Subject: SOC: All Critical Mass Theories Bogus? On Tue, 22 Jun 1993, Carol Moore wrote: > I've read other debunkings of 100th Monkey observations, > however, I see that many people, including some libertarians, > still use verious of some sort of social critical mass > theory that holds that when a certain percentage of > people hold an idea, most people will adopt it. > > Which, if any, of these theories are credible? The biggest problem isn't with the idea of "critical mass" (though there are problems there too) but with the mechanism of memetic transmission. Fashion and social pressure are important determinants of human behavior, and it's a trivial observation that the larger the number of people who adopt a behavior or express belief in an idea, the more likely the meme-set is to be adopted by others. The "express" part is important here--it doesn't matter who actually *believes* an idea, only who *acts* as though they believe it--there has to be some overt, observable behavior for a meme to be transmitted. (But the idea of actually being able to operationalize a concept of "critical mass" is not very realistic-- until there's a bit more science than there is at present in sociology or social psychology, it's just a metaphor). The "hundredth monkey" idea involves transmission of the memes through some imperceptible Sheldrakean "morphogenetic field" (or something --I'm not up to speed on morphogenetics, or whatever the whole field is called)--so that a "critical mass" can affect others without direct or indirect contact. This is nonsense. Scott DeLancey delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu Department of Linguistics University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 13:53:34 CDT From: capntaz@dudemar.b24a.ingr.com (Heath G. Goebel) Subject: SOC/CHAT: Appearances and Multiple Worlds > >Lefty writes: > > > >> Just to provide an anecdotal data point, I have personally walked through > >> Central Park well after midnight, alone, on a number of occasions. In the > >> words of a Kurt Vonnegut character who embarked on a similar adventure, > >> "There was nobody there. Just me, and fear, and nobody." > > > >Ah, but is this surprising? After all, you are still here to tell us > >about this, which means we are not in the realities in which you were > >mugged and killed. > > > >Sort of a like listening to a Russian roulette survivor explaining how > >it isn't really as dangerous as everyone says it is. > > Hey, I _said_ it was anecdotal. > > Actually, this ties in with a theory I've had for a while. I suggest that > we're _already_ immortal, that one's consciousness will _never_ end up on a > time line in which one dies. > > This would conceivably explain several narrow escapes I've had. > > Lefty (lefty@apple.com) > C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. Have you got monkeys up your butt? 8) What do you propose happens to your consciousness when your body is six feet under? I mean this is interesting, but how do you explain your physical death in this world as viewed by your survivors? -- Heath G. Goebel, ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 14:32:00 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: SOC: All Critical Mass Theories Bogus? Scott C DeLancey writes: > The "hundredth monkey" idea involves transmission of the memes > through some imperceptible Sheldrakean "morphogenetic field" (or something > --I'm not up to speed on morphogenetics, or whatever the whole field is > called) I think the field has been referred to as "bogus". -- 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, 22 Jun 93 14:58:57 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: SOC/CHAT: Appearances and Multiple Worlds Lefty writes: > Hey, I _said_ it was anecdotal. > > Actually, this ties in with a theory I've had for a while. I suggest that > we're _already_ immortal, that one's consciousness will _never_ end up on a > time line in which one dies. > > This would conceivably explain several narrow escapes I've had. Anyone care to test this theory at the next extropians party? I'll invite Dr. Kavorkian. Also, Many Worlds doesn't guarantee immortality. It's possible that something happens that kills you in _all_ universes. Still, it makes for very interesting fiction. (I loved Moravec's doomsday machine story. "everytime they tried to activate the machine, something happened. Someone tripped over a cord, a part malfunctioned, etc.") If such a theory could ever be validated (in all universes), it would certainly frustrate those who want to commit suicide. -- 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, 22 Jun 1993 12:29:01 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: SOC/CHAT: Appearances and Multiple Worlds Heath G. Goebel asks: > >Have you got monkeys up your butt? 8) Why, Heath, is that a proposition? I'll have you know, I'm not that kind of boy. >What do you propose happens to your consciousness when your >body is six feet under? _I_ never end up "six feet under". Against all reasonable odds, I live to be a billion or two. The _rest_ of you end up "six feet under". >I mean this is interesting, but how do you explain your physical death in this >world as viewed by your survivors? Easy. They're in a _different_ _universe_ from me. Sheesh! (Would it help you if I were to sprinkle some "smileys" in here?) -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 13:14:25 PDT From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: AIT VirtSem: Other Topics Several of you have sent me e-mail suggesting ideas for material to cover. Some also want the topics broadened to include a lot more additional material. However, the quest for "relevancy" often results in a net that is cast too widely. For example, here are some of the suggestions that some of you want to see included: * Prigogine and his interpretation of complexity and emergent order (presumably touching on the huge field of chaos theory, fractals, etc.) * software for self-replicating factories and space-based industry * neuroscience (presumably including neural nets, AI, etc.) * artificial life, or A-LIFE * nanotechnology, especially Drexler's new "Nanosystems" book Now all of these are excellent topics, timely for the List and with at least a few links to the Chaitin/algorithmic information theory thread. The problems are obvious: - any of these topics would be fodder for an entire seminar! (indeed, Hal Finney tried to generate interest in a "Nanosystems" discussion some months back) - it'll be hard enough just getting through the basic ideas of AIT, without bringing in Prigogine on emergent order, Wolfram on cellular automata, and, indeed, the whole Santa Fe Institute constellation of ideas on artificial life! If you folks feel that a VirtSem on A-LIFE, or nanotech, or life extension, or neural nets, or chaos theory, on E-prime, on the evolution of hominids, on dinosaur-cloning, or whatever, is more important to you, then go ahead and set one up! This hasn't happened so far (except in the sense of the discussions on the List being a kind of very loose, episodic "seminar"), probably because folks will not agree to read roughly the same material at roughly the same time. (Recall that Amara Graps tried to generate some interest in Prigogine. I think one other person read it at the same, so a true seminar-like situation couldn't prevail.) While I don't claim that any single theory, like Chaitin's, is the end-all and be-all of theories, I am hopeful that a narrow focus on one particular branch--for this seminar at least--will produce the kind of "speaking the same language" effect I think we badly need. If you're interested in this stuff, join us. If not, don't. If you're somewhat interested, but think other things (like space colonization, the politics of multimedia distribution, the role of antioxidants in life extension, whatever) are _more_ important, then by all means set up your own study groups or seminars in these areas! Being a market anarchy, we don't have to "prioritize" interests and then work on only the "most important" issues. Think of there being 30 university departments, each with a dozen major branches of study, and with each department teaching 50 courses a year and as many seminars. Our "AIT VirtSem" is just one of 'em. Good luck! -Tim, who will stick to this narrow field for now, as advertised. P.S. An alternative to the "VirtSem" idea, and one we may want to pursue anyway, is the idea of List-mediated "reading group." Similar to the "Bay Area Reading Group," which meets once a month, and which several Extropians are active in. For example, we might agree (or someone could simply post a proposal) to read, say, Bruce Benson's "The Enterprise of Law" and begin discussing it on "1 August." (Not that anyone is forbidden from discussing it at any other time, just that the announced date becomes a motivating target for others, a kind of Schelling point.) -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 13:25:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott C DeLancey Subject: SOC: All Critical Mass Theories Bogus? On Tue, 22 Jun 1993, Ray wrote: > Scott C DeLancey writes: > > The "hundredth monkey" idea involves transmission of the memes > > through some imperceptible Sheldrakean "morphogenetic field" (or something > > --I'm not up to speed on morphogenetics, or whatever the whole field is > > called) > > I think the field has been referred to as "bogus". A noun, Ray, we need a noun! Scott DeLancey delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu Department of Linguistics University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403, USA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 10:46:31 -0400 (EDT) From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: EVOLUTION/DIET: What proto-hominids ate > Much enjoyed the part about throwing giving rise to much of our intelligence. > Interesting concept. Yes, isn't it? I recommend William Calvin's _The_Ascent_Of_Mind_ for more on this. Kubrick may have gotten it right by accident in 2001 --- not the black-monolith bit, but the visual association between throwing and intelligence. > Using gorilla:chimp as evidence of vegetarian-only diet leading to bigger, > stronger jaws seems a bit flawed, considering that gorillas are just > bigger and stronger all over. True --- but if you scale gorillas and chimps to the same size, gorilla jaws and teeth are still larger. That was my actual point, which I didn't make clearly enough. Also you should consider features like the sagittal crest, found in gorillas and (I think) some A. robustus but not in chimps and humans. It's characteristic of primates with *really powerful* jaws; the crest anchors jaw muscles at the top of the skull. > As for h-g's being more healthy, I'd like to > see evidence of that statement, as it flies in the face of all I have > studied (concisely: h-g's have short lifespans, and tend to not have > particularly good health; Sorry, I meant to assert (in your terms) that hunter-gatherers are healthier than horticulturalists. This is well-established, e.g. in New World archeology comparing sedentary maize-farming populations with h-g populations. There are lots of nasty deficiency diseases that leave traces in the bones and teeth; they're endemic in the sedentary populations, rare in the h-g ones. To refute this with the !Kung, you'd have to compare them against horticulturalists *living in the same biome*. -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 10:09:38 -0400 (EDT) From: esr@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) Subject: EVOLUTION/DIET: What proto-hominids ate > Humans have a strong revulsion to decaying raw meat. Excellent point. Argues against carrion-eating as an important part of the hominid diet. > It makes much more sense to rely on modern demographic studies > and nutritional studies of specific substances on specific > tissues, rather than speculations about fossil interpretation. Also quite true. The problem, of course, is that it's very difficult to separate diet from other mortality factors. -- Eric S. Raymond ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 15:50:46 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: EVOLUTION/DIET: What proto-hominids ate In <9306222018.AA25947@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Eric S. Raymond writes: [...] |> True --- but if you scale gorillas and chimps to the same size, gorilla |> jaws and teeth are still larger. That was my actual point, which I didn't |> make clearly enough. Also you should consider features like the sagittal |> crest, found in gorillas and (I think) some A. robustus I can confirm this. Seen casts & pictures. It's one of the things that makes the Australopithecus family tree so controversial. |> Sorry, I meant to assert (in your terms) that hunter-gatherers are healthier |> than horticulturalists. This is well-established, e.g. in New World archeology [...] |> To refute this with the !Kung, you'd have to compare them against |> horticulturalists *living in the same biome*. How conveeeenient ;-) The !Kung live in a biome that the Aggies don't want & can't use, so there is no control population. Anyway, they for sure don't have overweight or lack of exercise as a health risk! ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:20:29 -0700 From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: AIT VirtSem: Reading List, Version 1.0 Explanation: These are some primary reference sources, all in book form, for the "Virtual Seminar" on "Algorithmic Information Theory." Some of them are directly related to AIT, some are more general treatments of information theory and the nature of computation, and some are only indirectly related to the themes of this VirtSem (as with John Koza's book on "Genetic Programming"). I'll add more books as I think of them, or as others make suggestions. Technical papers are _not_ included at this time, as they are mostly reprinted in the Chaitin, Zurek, and Leff collections. Some of the most important papers can be Xeroxed if you have access to a good university library--I'll try to alert you in plenty of time as to which ones are most recommended (comments from others are of course welcome). A few of the most relevant papers may be scanned and OCRed by me and made available to the group. I have divided the readings into four categories: Level 0: Basic Background, Light Reading Level 1: Foundations Level 2: Chaitin Appendices: Related Materials The Level 0 material, which has been cited several times in the Chaitin threads, is mostly a basis for deciding if this seminar is of interest. By reading the sections on algorithmic information theory in several of these books, you'll get perspective on why this material is interesting, and what it may mean for biology, nanotechnology, etc. Many of these books you can find at local bookstores. You can even read the Chaitin sections right there in the bookstore! The Level 1 material is more sophisticated, and should be treated as study material. Rucker's "Mind Tools" is an especially good example of this. Level 2 is the Chaitin material per se. Often very dense, it will likely form the core of our seminar (though which of the papers we'll focus on hasn't been decided yet). The Appendix readings are in various other fields, like classical information theory and genetic programming. Drexler's books are not included because he devotes almost no space to issues of software complexity and information theory (an important omission, I think, but of course it's OK that his focus is on material properties and the physics of small structures). The several books on information theory and the nature of computation are very important, and could be the basis of a separate seminar on classical information theory. ***** Level 0: Basic Background, Light Reading ***** * Ruelle, David. Chance and chaos / David Ruelle. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, c1991. QA273 .R885 1991 A very readable introduction to the ideas of modern mathematics and computer science. A brief chapter on Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity is a good place to start (or to read while in a bookstore!). * Pagels, Heinz R., 1939- The dreams of reason : the computer and the rise of the sciences of complexity / Heinz R. Pagels. New York : Simon and Schuster, c1988. QA76.9.C66 P34 1988 Chapter 3 deals with the nature of randomness and complexity. * Casti, J. L. Searching for certainty : what scientists can know about the future / John L. Casti. 1st ed. New York : W. Morrow, c1990. Q175 .C434 1991 Casti devotes a lot of space to the work of Kolmogorov and Chaitin, with emphasis on the "randomness of mathematics" aspects. * Barrow, John D., 1952- Theories of everything : the quest for ultimate explanation / John D. Barrow. Oxford [England] : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1991. Q175 .B225 1991 * Barrow, John D., 1952- Pi in the sky : counting, thinking, and being / John D. Barrow. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1992. QA36 .B37 1992 Both of Barrow's recent books have sections on Chaitin. * Davies, Paul The mind of God : the scientific basis for a rational world / Paul Davies. New York : Simon & Schuster, c1992. BL240.2 .D29 1992 A brief discussion--a good candidate for reading in a bookstore. ***** Level 1: Foundations ***** * Rucker, Rudy v. B. (Rudy von Bitter), 1946- Mind tools : the five levels of mathematical reality / Rudy Rucker. Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1987. QA10.4 .R83 1987 An excellent survey of the ideas of modern mathematics, with a special focus on information theory and complexity. Rucker's treatment of Chaitin is especially valuable (though it predates the 'Omega" result). (Other books need to be added to this section.) ***** Level 2: Chaitin ***** * Chaitin, Gregory J. Algorithmic information theory / Gregory J. Chaitin. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1987. Series title: Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science ; 1. QA267 .C481 1987 A very difficult book! Even Chaitin admits this, likening it to a fast hike up a mountain. A Second Edition is forthcoming, which I have a preprint of. It rewrites his Omega code in Mathematica and C, and includes an excellent lecture he gave in October 1992 (which I may scan and OCR for distribution to the group). Get this book only if you're very interested (and perhaps you should wait for the 2nd Edition). * Chaitin, Gregory J. Information randomness & incompleteness : papers on algorithmic information theory / G.J. Chaitin. 2nd ed. Singapore ; Teaneck, NJ : World Scientific, 1990. Series title: Series in computer science ; v. 8. QA76 .C472 1990 An excellent collection of papers, dating from the 1960s on up to the present. Includes survey papers from "Scientific American" and other sources. However, it is mostly "AIT I," meaning it predates his results on Omega, which recast his theory as what he calls "AIT II." Still, a very nice collection. * Chaitin, Gregory J. Information-theoretic incompleteness / G.J. Chaitin. Singapore ; River Edge, N.J. : World Scientific Pub. Co., 1992. Series title: World Scientific series in computer science ; vol. 35. Series title: Series in computer science ; vol. 35. QA267 .C5 1992 An odd collection of papers on LISP complexity, book reviews, and speculations about biology, this book is not the "introduction" it could have been. Highly personal, and is somewhat of an autobiography of Chaitin's interests. Amongst Chaitin's books, I would tend to recommend folks get "Information randomness & incompleteness : papers on algorithmic information theory" and then supplement it with some of the more recent results. ***** Appendices: Related Materials ***** * Hodges, Andrew. Alan Turing : the enigma / Andrew Hodges. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1983. QA29.T8 H63 1983 A readable best-seller that explains Turing's diagonal proof (essential to Chaitin's proofs) in a clear way. * Pierce, John Robinson, 1910- An introduction to information theory : symbols, signals & noise / John R. Pierce. 2nd, rev. ed. New York : Dover Publications, 1980. Q360 .P5 1980 A classic introduction to Shannon information theory. Read and absorb this before tackling any of the other information theory texts. * Cover, T. M., 1938- Elements of information theory / Thomas M. Cover, Joy A. Thomas. New York : Wiley, c1991. Series title: Wiley series in telecommunications. Q360 .C68 1991 Has a chapter devoted to Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity and Omega. Chaitin feels the historical treatment is flawed. Very mathematical. * Maxwell's demon : entropy, information, computing / edited by Harvey S. Leff and Andrew F. Rex. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, c1990. Series title: Princeton series in physics. QC318.M35 M38 1990 A set of the classic papers, in rough historical order. Maxwell's demon and the nature of computation are treated. * Complexity, entropy, and the physics of information : proceedings of the SFI Workshop entitled, "complexity, entropy, and the physics of information, held May 29 to June 10, 1989 / edited by Wojciech Zurek. Redwood City, Calif. : Addison-Wesley, The Advanced Book Program, 1991. Series title: Proceedings volume in the Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity ; v. 8. QC39.S48 1991 Many excellent and stimulating papers on the physics of information, reversibility, logical depth, algorithmic information theory, and the nature of computation. Zurek's papers are especially relevant to the themes of this seminar. * Koza, John R. Genetic programming : on the programming of computers by means of natural selection / John R. Koza. Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c1992. Series title: Complex adaptive systems. QA76.6 .K695 1992 A very large and dense book, with lots of examples---but little "theory." (The theory of why and how genetic programming works is not really known, so Koza is not leaving out material he could have included.) Please send me suggestions. -Tim May -- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: by arrangement Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 11:44:56 PDT From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: AIT VirtSem: Random Numbers Some folks have asked my what all this Chaitin stuff has to do with Extropian interests and all. Well, in addition to being interesting for its own sake (surely an Extropian reason, thought perhaps only for me), it touches directly on some important issues: * random numbers, for crypto use (What,really, is a "random" number, and why don't formal algorithms work very well?) * information in genomes (for life and for machines) * entropy and the nature of computation The subject of "randomness" is incredibly important for crypto, and this posting today from Bennet Yee shows that Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity is a main approach: Newsgroups: alt.privacy.clipper,sci.crypt,sci.skeptic From: bsy+@CS.CMU.EDU (Bennet Yee) Subject: Re: Let's split sci.crypt and Re: Random numbers? Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 16:49:18 GMT I agree that sci.crypt has gotten to be a -much- noisier newsfroup. By all means, if somebody wants to do a real vote counting, I'd certainly go for it. In article <20734c$imv@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>, oreillym@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Michael O'Reilly) writes: + +Now I give you some numbers, and ask you if the series is random. +The first number is '1'. So is the 2nd, and the 3rd, in fact, every +number I give you is one. Is this series random??? + +What if I then told you that I generated the series by rolling a +dice.... (pretty unlikely, but possible). and alternatively if I told +you that no matter what number you asked me for, it would always be +'1'. + +From a face reading of you definition you would the series random, +regardless of how it is generated because you can't be absolutely +certain of what the next number would be. See books on Kolmogorov/Chaitin complexity for one interesting definition of randomness, and also -----end quote------- -Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 15:57:35 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Craig Presson) Subject: BOOKS: Sci-fi In <9306221503.AA23092@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Andrew S Hall writes: [...] |> The book is _The Hercules Text_ by (I don't recall but have it at home) |> |> The premise of the story is that SETI finally pays off [...] I recall another one ... yes ... Varley[?]'s _The Ophiucus Hotline_, with exactly the same plot ... and to some extent Niven/Pournelle's _The Mote in God's Eye_; and of course, Sagan's _Contact_ ... Why, could this form a Science Fiction _standard_, not to use the judgemental _cliche_? You make the call! ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO Earth invaded by Bug-eyed Monsters! Film at 11. /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 14:20:23 -0800 From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty) Subject: BOOKS: Sci-fi >I recall another one ... yes ... Varley[?]'s _The Ophiucus >Hotline_, with exactly the same plot ... "The Ophiuchi Hotline" by John Varley. Not _exactly_ the same plot, there's a bunch of stuff about either androids or cloning, I can't recall which... -- Lefty (lefty@apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 14:32:16 PDT From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May) Subject: Extropian Music? Extropian Fiction? Andrew Hall writes: > In <9306221503.AA23092@wookumz.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Andrew S Hall writes: > [...] > |> The book is _The Hercules Text_ by (I don't recall but have it at home) > |> > |> The premise of the story is that SETI finally pays off Just to show you it's mostly personal taste (as are so many of the things discussed here on this list), I _hated_ this book, whose author I recall as being Jack McDivitt, or somesuch. The book I sort of liked, "The Assemblers of Infinity," Nick Szabo _hated_. In fact, he ranted against it so much he may write his own novel! (Surely a good Extropian outcome, then.) Are we truly a religious cult? We talk about "Extropian music," "Extropian fiction," and "Extropianly correct" views (though a smiley is implied there, for most of us). I suspect there's no such as Extropian music, fiction, or whatever, only what we personally like or dislike. -Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Note: I put time and money into writing this posting. I hope you enjoy it. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1993 18:02:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Carol Moore Subject: META: Self-Rating System META: Self-Rating System Like most of us, I am trying to delete as many posts as possible before reading. It suddenly occurred to me that a self-rating system might help us all decide what to read or delete. We would preface each subject line with an A, B or C. A -- New thread or fresh reply to old thread, general interest, high quality. B -- From about 6th thread reply on, unless truly interesting to all; of interest to some, medium quality. C -- Thread replies that should be on e-mail by now; goofing around/humor threads; relatively low quality stuff you know a lot of people won't like but feel you MUST post. NOTE: In replying to messages you might have to change the subject line accordingly and not just automatically use same rating as original poster. Needless to say, such self-rating would take ruthless self- honesty. But it might keep many of us from posting some of the really useless thread replies and boring messages. Then "C" would become a repository for the fun silliness which we all sometimes have time for. EXAMPLES BELOW [comments in brackets] Subject: A:META: Self-Rating System Subject: A:SOC: Wolf Psychology lst post Subject: B:SOC: Wolf Psychology 5th post Subject: B:DIET: Ideas for Overweight Subject: B:MEETING OF HOUSTON EXTROPIANS Subject: C:SOC: Wolf Psychology [explains why poster 5 an idiot] Subject: C:META: Self-Rating System [message about how Carol is *clueless* as to how human/or/male psychology works on self-rating] Subject: C:SOC: Wolf Psychology [joke about wolf sexuality] Subject: C:FLYING YOGIS [anything pro or con on that topic] etc etc etc Anybody else ready to take such a potentially ego challenging leap?? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Jun 93 18:24:03 EDT From: sulko-m@acsu.buffalo.edu (Mark A. Sulkowski) Subject: CHAT: I loved 2001. Very transhumanist movie. From: Brian D Williams > Well, we got some work to do.......Monolith building anyone? Last one to become a monolith is a lump of protoplasm! =============================================================================== | |\ /| | "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, 22 Jun 93 17:35:04 CDT From: capntaz@dudemar.b24a.ingr.com (Heath G. Goebel) Subject: SOC/CHAT: Appearances and Multiple Worlds Lefty (lefty@apple.com) writes: > Heath G. Goebel asks: > > > >Have you got monkeys up your butt? 8) > > Why, Heath, is that a proposition? I'll have you know, I'm not that kind > of boy. A proposition? No. Male "dating" does not interest me either. My stats, for whoever collects them (as if), are: one man has asked me out, I have never asked out a man. "Have you got monkeys up your butt?" is just an adaption from the Wayne's World special on MTV translated amongst my friends roughly to "Are you serious?, Are you joking? or Are you bs'ing me?" In the MTV special, Wayne finds himself in a Madonna video and he tries to bust his move on her... Madonna: "Oh Wayne I love you, you're the best." (or some such) Wayne: "Excellent." Madonna: "NOT! And monkeys might fly out of my butt." The converse of "Have you got monkeys up your butt?" is to grab you pants in the rear and shake out the monkeys in order to let your buddies (but not everyone else) know you are bs'ing them. For instance, I might say "I read in the paper yesterday of a woman who claims to have lived to the ripe old age of 120 subsisting entirely on Big Macs and french fries." and then grab my pants and shake out the monkeys. Enough of my neologism. > >What do you propose happens to your consciousness when your > >body is six feet under? > > _I_ never end up "six feet under". Against all reasonable odds, I live to > be a billion or two. The _rest_ of you end up "six feet under". > > >I mean this is interesting, but how do you explain your physical death in this > >world as viewed by your survivors? > > Easy. They're in a _different_ _universe_ from me. I think this multiple worlds idea is interesting enough to read a recommended multiple world SF story? References anyone? -- Heath G. Goebel, ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 Issue #0348 ****************************************